SINGH v Minister for Immigration

Singh was the applicant in proceedings before Judge A Kelly of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, seeking judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration. The dispute arose when Singh's application was dismissed pursuant to rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the court's rules due to his lateness to court. Singh subsequently sought reinstatement of his application, providing an explanation for his absence and arguing that no prejudice would be suffered by the Minister.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether there were compelling reasons to waive Schedule 3 criteria, and more fundamentally, whether Singh had shown a sufficiently arguable case for judicial review to warrant the reinstatement of his dismissed application. The court was required to consider the threshold for demonstrating an "arguable" ground of review in the context of an application for reinstatement, particularly for an unrepresented applicant whose first language was not English.

Judge Kelly reasoned that the discretion to grant reinstatement does not require the court to be satisfied of the grounds of review to the same standard as a final hearing. Instead, the applicable threshold is whether the grounds for judicial review are "arguable," meaning they are not fanciful, illogical, or devoid of merit, but possess a level of rationality and a basis in the material sufficient for the court to proceed to full argument. The applicant's explanation for his lateness, involving being directed to the wrong courtroom, was accepted, especially as the hearing commenced only 15 minutes after the scheduled time and the Minister's representative conceded no prejudice would arise. Despite the applicant's history of previous visa applications and merits reviews, the court re-examined the materials to assess the arguable basis for review.

The court ordered that the application be reinstated.