Reddy v Minister for Immigration

This matter concerned an application for judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to affirm the refusal of a partner visa. The applicant, Ms. Reddy, had applied for a partner visa, but her sponsor informed the Department of Immigration that the relationship had ended. The AAT subsequently invited Ms. Reddy to comment on this information, but she failed to respond within the stipulated timeframe. The AAT then proceeded to make its decision without affording her a further opportunity to comment.

The central legal issues before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia were whether the AAT's process was unfair, whether the Tribunal had misconstrued its powers, and whether its reasoning was irrational. Specifically, the court considered whether the AAT had failed to exercise its statutory power or had misconstrued section 359A of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The applicant argued that the Tribunal's decision to proceed without further comment from her constituted a jurisdictional error.

Judge Driver found that the correspondence from the AAT, which combined an invitation to comment with a request for information, did not disentitle the applicant to a hearing when no response was made within the stipulated time period. The court held that the Tribunal's approach was unfair and amounted to a jurisdictional error. The Tribunal had a duty to ensure procedural fairness, and its failure to provide a further opportunity for comment after the applicant's non-response to the combined invitation and request was a breach of that duty.

The court set aside the AAT's decision and remitted the matter to the AAT for redetermination according to law.