WACB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by WACB, an illiterate and unaccompanied minor in immigration detention, against a decision of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. The dispute concerned whether WACB had lodged his application for review of a Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) decision within the 28-day time limit prescribed by section 478(1)(b) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The core of the issue was the interpretation of "notified of the decision" within that section, particularly whether merely being informed of the outcome of the RRT's decision was sufficient notification, or if the provision of the written statement of reasons was a prerequisite.

The legal issues before the Court were twofold: first, whether the applicant was "notified of the decision" under section 478(1)(b) by being verbally informed of the RRT's outcome, or if the formal written statement of reasons was a necessary component of notification for the purpose of triggering the 28-day time limit for seeking Federal Court review. Second, the Court was asked to consider whether the Minister's obligations as a statutory guardian under the *Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946* (Cth) were relevant to the construction of section 478(1)(b) of the *Migration Act*.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Full Court of the Federal Court. The Court reasoned that section 478(1)(b) requires the provision of the written statement of the RRT's decision to constitute notification for the purpose of commencing the time limit for seeking judicial review. The Court emphasised that this interpretation was consistent with the subject, scope, and purpose of the relevant provisions of the *Migration Act*, which are designed to facilitate, rather than obstruct, the limited entitlement to judicial review. The Court found that the written statement is the essential medium for notification, as it equips the applicant with the necessary information to frame an application to the Federal Court, even if the applicant requires legal assistance to do so. The Court concluded that the Minister's obligations as a statutory guardian were not relevant to the construction of section 478(1)(b).