Tukala v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

Vangu Kitoko and Veronique Vela sought judicial review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The applicants were challenging a decision made by the AAT to dismiss their review application of a decision made by the Department of Home Affairs. The applicants lodged their application for review with the AAT on 21 April 2020, one day before the prescribed deadline. However, the AAT found that the application was invalid as it was not accompanied by the prescribed fee. The applicants sought to argue that the AAT erred in law by not considering their application, and that a jurisdictional error occurred due to the failure of the AAT's internet network, which prevented them from making payment of the prescribed fee.

The court was required to decide whether the applicants' grounds for review were sufficient to establish that the AAT had made a jurisdictional error in dismissing their review application. The court also had to consider whether the application for review was validly made and whether the applicants had reasonable prospects of success. The court found that the applicants' grounds for review were unmeritorious and did not establish a jurisdictional error on the part of the AAT. The court found that the applicants had failed to provide evidence to support their claims of internet network failure and bad faith on the part of the AAT. The court also found that the applicants' application for review was invalid as it was not accompanied by the prescribed fee. The court held that the applicants did not have reasonable prospects of success and that Mr Kitoko had encouraged the applicants to commence and continue the litigation without giving proper consideration to the prospects of success.

The court dismissed the applicants' application for judicial review and ordered that they pay the Minister's costs of the application. The court found that the applicants' application lacked reasonable prospects of success and that Mr Kitoko had encouraged the applicants to commence and continue the litigation without giving proper consideration to the prospects of success. The court held that the Minister was entitled to costs under s 486E of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The court ordered that the applicants pay the Minister's costs of the application, which were assessed at $5,500.