Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services & Multicultural Affairs

Kendall J of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered an application by Mr Singh seeking to transfer his judicial review proceedings from Perth to Melbourne. Mr Singh’s substantive application concerned a decision by the Migration Review Tribunal to affirm a delegate of the Minister’s refusal of a Regional Employer Nomination (subclass 187) visa, on the basis that Mr Singh did not meet a specific regulation concerning approved nominations. Mr Singh requested the transfer to Melbourne to allow for a face-to-face hearing, expressing concerns about the effectiveness of video conferencing due to his home environment and prior negative experiences with virtual hearings.

The Court was required to determine whether it was appropriate to transfer the proceedings to Melbourne, considering the convenience of the parties, the limiting of expense and cost, and the overall interests of the administration of justice. The Minister opposed the transfer, citing that the matter commenced in Perth, could be facilitated by videoconference, had a hearing date, was considered without merit, and that prompt dealing was in the interests of justice. The Minister also argued that substantial delays existed in the Melbourne registry and that a face-to-face hearing was not guaranteed even if transferred.

Kendall J reasoned that Mr Singh had not provided sufficient evidence to confirm he would be residing in Melbourne at the time of the hearing, although the Court was prepared to accept this possibility. However, the Court noted that a face-to-face hearing was unlikely in Melbourne due to the ongoing COVID-19 situation and the prevalence of virtual hearings. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that a hearing in Melbourne did not guarantee a face-to-face appearance, as judges from other registries might preside via video link. The Court found that transferring the matter would not necessarily limit expense, as the hearing could proceed via telephone or video link, and any costs incurred by Mr Singh to travel to Perth for a face-to-face hearing would be his own. Ultimately, the Court concluded that it was in the interests of the administration of justice for the matter to remain listed in Perth.

Accordingly, the application to transfer the case to Melbourne was dismissed. The Court granted Mr Singh an additional month to file an amended application and further affidavits, including a transcript of the Tribunal hearing, to address digital technology issues he had raised. The substantive hearing was confirmed to remain listed for 24 June 2021 in Perth.