SZLCZ v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, SZLCZ, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Minister for Immigration. The dispute concerned whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) committed jurisdictional error by failing to consider evidence submitted by the applicant shortly before a scheduled hearing. The applicant had forwarded a facsimile to the Tribunal on 22 January 2015, the day before the hearing, indicating she would not attend due to back pain and fibroid symptoms, and requesting the Tribunal proceed based on the evidence provided. This facsimile included two photographs of the applicant and supporting letters from two individuals. Crucially, the Tribunal was unaware of this facsimile when it made its decision on 29 January 2015, and therefore did not take the submitted material into account.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal's failure to consider the facsimile and its accompanying exhibits constituted a jurisdictional error, specifically a constructive failure to exercise its jurisdiction. This required the court to determine if the Tribunal, by not having regard to the material, had failed to properly engage with the applicant's case and the evidence relevant to her review application. The court was tasked with assessing the importance of the omitted material in the context of the claims and evidence before the Tribunal and the subject of the review.

The court reasoned that for a jurisdictional error to be established, the Tribunal must have failed to have regard to material that was significant and relevant to the applicant's case. The applicant's submission, though received late and not acknowledged by the Tribunal, contained assertions about her inability to attend the hearing due to medical reasons and presented documentary evidence intended to support her application. The court considered whether the Tribunal's decision, made without awareness of this submission, amounted to a failure to exercise its jurisdiction, particularly given the potential impact of the applicant's medical condition on her ability to participate in the hearing. The court noted that the Tribunal's own reasons for decision stated the applicant had provided no response to the invitation to attend and had not contacted the Tribunal.