MIMIA v Godley

MIMIA (the appellant) appealed to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Full Federal Court. The dispute concerned the appellant's liability for a penalty under s 133(1) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) for allegedly failing to notify the Minister of a change in the circumstances of a non-citizen. The non-citizen in question was the respondent, Mr Godley, who had been granted a protection visa. The appellant argued that the Full Federal Court had erred in its interpretation of the notification obligation.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the appellant, as the sponsor of Mr Godley, had a positive obligation to notify the Minister of a change in Mr Godley's circumstances, specifically his failure to attend a scheduled interview with the Department of Immigration. The appellant contended that the obligation to notify was contingent upon the sponsor having actual knowledge of the change in circumstances, and that mere suspicion or a failure to make inquiries did not trigger this obligation.

Gummow and Callinan JJ, in dismissing the appeal, held that the wording of s 133(1) imposed a strict liability on the sponsor. Their Honours reasoned that the obligation to notify arose upon the sponsor becoming aware of a change in circumstances, and that this awareness did not require certainty or proof. The Court affirmed that the purpose of the provision was to ensure the Minister was kept informed of matters relevant to a visa holder's status, and that a sponsor could not escape liability by deliberately avoiding knowledge or by failing to make reasonable inquiries. The appeal was dismissed.