Singh v Minister for Immigration

In Singh v Minister for Immigration & Anor, the applicants, Gulzar Singh and his family, sought judicial review of a decision by the Migration Review Tribunal affirming the Minister for Immigration's decision not to grant them Employer Nomination (Residence) visas. The Tribunal's decision followed the refusal of an application by the North Shore Sikh Association, Gulzar Singh's employer, for approval of a nominated position. The applicants' visa applications were refused as the nomination by the Association had not been approved, which was a necessary criterion for the visa.

The applicants' application for judicial review was made outside the statutory 35-day limit, and they also did not apply for an extension of time within that period. At the hearing, the applicants sought an extension of time, citing a "misapprehension" by their legal representative that their application could be combined with that of the Association. The Court acknowledged the applicants' intention to make a timely application but found the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory, particularly as the applicants had legal representation.

The applicants argued that the Tribunal's decision contained a jurisdictional error, as it had failed to provide them with specific information about why the Association's nomination was refused, as required by s.359A of the Migration Act 1958. The Court found that the Tribunal had indeed failed to comply with s.359A but noted that even if the error were corrected, the outcome for the applicants would not change, as the Tribunal would still be bound to affirm the delegate's decision given the outcome of the Association's application.

Consequently, the Court refused to extend the time for the application and dismissed it as not competent. The Court emphasized that while the applicants' explanation for the delay was not satisfactory, the primary consideration was whether extending the time would serve the interests of the administration of justice. Given the inevitability of the outcome, the Court concluded that extending the time would not be in the interests of justice.