Solomon v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

In Solomon v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the applicant, Loreto, sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal to reject his application for a protection visa. Loreto’s legal representatives communicated with the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, asserting that Loreto had not been notified of the Tribunal’s decision until recently, despite it being rendered in December 1997. Loreto's application for review in the Federal Court was lodged on 17 August 1999, well beyond the 28-day statutory period for such applications.

The central legal issue before the court was whether Loreto's application for review was time-barred under section 478(1)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), which stipulates that an application for review must be lodged within 28 days of the applicant being notified of the decision. The court had to determine whether Loreto's solicitors' acknowledgment of notification to their client could be considered valid notification for the purposes of triggering the statutory period and whether there was any authority to extend the time for lodging the application.

The court examined the precedent set in Long v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, where it was held that an applicant is considered "notified" when they learn of the decision, even without having received the reasons for the decision. While there was disagreement among the judges on whether an applicant is also "notified" when their legal representatives are notified, this did not impact the court's ability to consider the applicant's solicitors' acknowledgment as valid notification. Given that Loreto had been notified of the Tribunal's decision by September 1998, and his application for review was not lodged until August 1999, the application was clearly outside the 28-day statutory period. The court found no basis under section 478 of the Act to extend this time limit.

In light of the above, the court dismissed the application and ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs.