Seymour v Migration Agents Registration Authority - [2007] FCAFC 5

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Seymour v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2007] FCAFC 5
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – appeal from primary judge dismissing application for review of Tribunal decision – Tribunal dismissed application for a stay of the Authority’s decision disallowing the appellant’s re-registration as a migration agent – Tribunal held that amended form of s 300 prevented the Tribunal from granting an effective stay order – interpretation of s 300 as amended – purpose of legislation – use of extrinsic materials such as explanatory memoranda in statutory interpretation – no error found in decision of Tribunal or primary judge – appeal dismissed.
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 300, Part 3
Migration Legislation Amendment (Migration Agents Integrity Measures) Act 2004 (Cth)
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), s 41(2)
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), s 13
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 39B
Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s 15AB
Seymour v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2006] FCA 649, upheld
Seymour v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2006] FCA 965, referred to
CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384, followed
Amin v MARA [2003] AATA 1095, referred to
Maarbani v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2003] AATA 1109, referred to
Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum, Migration Legislation Amendment (Migration Agents Integrity Measures) Bill 2004 (Cth)
MICHAEL SEYMOUR v MIGRATION AGENTS REGISTRATION AUTHORITY AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL (CONSTITUTED BY DEPUTY PRESIDENT BLOCK)
NSD 1067 OF 2006
TAMBERLIN, GYLES & STONE JJ
2 FEBRUARY 2007
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1067 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

MICHAEL SEYMOUR
Appellant

AND:

MIGRATION AGENTS REGISTRATION AUTHORITY
First Respondent

THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL (CONSTITUTED BY DEPUTY PRESIDENT BLOCK)
Second Respondent

JUDGES:

TAMBERLIN, GYLES AND STONE JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

2 FEBRUARY 2007

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1067 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

MICHAEL SEYMOUR
Appellant

AND:

MIGRATION AGENTS REGISTRATION AUTHORITY
First Respondent

THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL (CONSTITUTED BY DEPUTY PRESIDENT BLOCK)
Second Respondent

JUDGES:

TAMBERLIN, GYLES AND STONE JJ

DATE:

2 FEBRUARY 2007

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT:

This is an appeal from the judgment of Jacobson J handed down on 31 May 2006 which dismissed an application by Mr Seymour for review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”): Seymour v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2006] FCA 649. On 27 April 2006, the Tribunal dismissed an application by Mr Seymour for a stay of a decision made by the Migration Agents Registration Authority (“the Authority”) on 20 February 2006. On this date, the Authority decided to refuse an application by Mr Seymour for re-registration as a…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Seymour v Migration Agents Registration Authority and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2007] FCAFC 5
Decision Date: 2 February 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Seymour v Migration Agents Registration Authority, the central issue was the interpretation of the provisions in the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) concerning the automatic continuation of registration for migration agents. Specifically, the court was tasked with determining whether the provisions allowed for an agent's registration to continue automatically if a decision on a renewal application was not made within a specified period. This question arose from a dispute between the applicant, Mr Seymour, and the Migration Agents Registration Authority, which had refused his application for re-registration. The Tribunal had previously set aside the Authority’s decision but concluded that Mr Seymour was not fit and proper to be registered.

The primary legal issue the court had to resolve was whether the amended section 300 of the Act, which was in effect from 1 July 2006, allowed for an automatic continuation of registration if a decision on a renewal application was not made within ten months. The court had to interpret the legislative language and determine whether the automatic continuation of registration should be read in a way that grants actual registration after ten months if no decision is made. The court also had to consider whether extrinsic materials and other sources, such as parliamentary materials and law reform reports, could be used in interpreting the statutory language.

The court held that the amended section 300 did not provide for automatic registration if the Authority did not decide on the renewal application within ten months. Instead, the section was intended to ensure that the Authority's decision-making process was expedited, and it did not alter the substantive requirements for registration. The court emphasised the importance of interpreting statutes in a way that aligns with the legislative intent and rejected the broader interpretation that would have effectively granted automatic registration. The court also noted that while extrinsic materials could be helpful in understanding the context of the legislation, they could not override the clear language of the statute. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Before the Amendments of 1 July 2006, s 300 of the Act provided that:‘300 Automatic continuation of registration(1) If:(a)before the end of the last day (the expiry day) of the period of registration of a registered agent, the agent has made a registration application; and (b)the agent has paid the registration application fee (if any) in respect of the application; and(c)the Migration Agents Registration Authority has not decided the application before the end of the expiry day;the agent’s registration is taken to continue until the Authority decides the application.(2) Application granted if no decision within a certain periodHowever, if the Authority has not decided the registration application before the end of the period of 10 months beginning on the day after the expiry day, the application is taken to have been granted at the end of that period.(3) When registration takes effectIf the Authority grants the registration application, or the registration application is taken to have been granted under subsection (2), the registration is treated as having taken effect at the end of the expiry day.’ On 1 July 2004, by Item 63 in Schedule 1 of the Amending Act, s 300 was repealed and substituted with a new s 300 that provided: Mr Seymour was first registered as a migration agent on 15 April 1994. Since that time, his annual registration has continued with an expiry date of 23 May in each successive year. In May 2004, Mr Seymour applied to the Authority for re-registration as a migration agent for the 12 month period expiring on 23 May 2005. This was refused in February 2005, but the Tribunal subsequently granted a stay of the decision under the Act as in force prior to the changes implemented by the Amending Act. Mr Seymour then made an application to the Tribunal to set aside the Authority’s decision. The Tribunal decided that the Authority’s decision should be set aside because the decision-maker was not authorised to make the decision. However, the Tribunal substituted its own decision and itself decided that Mr Seymour was not a fit and proper person to be registered. An appeal was then brought to the Court from the Tribunal and on 31 July 2006, Rares J dismissed that appeal: see Seymour v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2006] FCA 965. There is a detailed history of these other proceedings in relation to Mr Seymour in his Honour’s judgment and it is not necessary to repeat those details in these reasons. On 5 May 2005, Mr Seymour lodged an application for re-registration for the period 24 May 2005 to 23 May 2006. On 20 February 2006, the Authority rejected this application in respect of this period. In its reasons, the Authority found that having regard to a number of matters, Mr Seymour was not a person of integrity and for this reason the Authority was bound to refuse registration in respect of that year pursuant to s 290 of the Act. On 27 April 2006, the Tribunal refused the application for a stay, accepting the submission of the Authority that if the Tribunal had the power to grant an effective stay, s 300(7) would have no work to do because it would not significantly alter the law as it previously stood. The Tribunal noted an alternative interpretation of the subsection would have the effect that actual registration would have been granted after the expiration of ten months. Accordingly, the Tribunal decided this interpretation could not be attributed to the legislation. In its reasons, the Tribunal discussed the principles of statutory interpretation and referred to the High Court decision in CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384 at 408. In this decision, the Court noted the importance of using extrinsic material and other relevant sources, including admissible parliamentary materials and background documents such as law reform reports, as aides in statutory interpretation.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1067 OF 2006

JUDGES:	TAMBERLIN, GYLES AND STONE JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	2 FEBRUARY 2007
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1067 OF 2006

JUDGES:	TAMBERLIN, GYLES AND STONE JJ
DATE:	2 FEBRUARY 2007
PLACE:	SYDNEY