Wang v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

In Wang v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the Federal Court of Australia was required to decide whether the applicant, Mr. Wang, had lost his right of review under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) due to the incorrect information provided by an officer of the Immigration Review Tribunal (IRT). The court was tasked with determining whether the applicant was notified of the decision within the 28-day period for review, as required by s.478 of the Act. The court also needed to consider whether the respondent was estopped from alleging the application was not lodged within the 28-day period.

The court concluded that the applicant was not notified of the decision prior to 5 February 1996, when an IRT officer informed him of the decision and provided him with a copy of the written statement of the decision. However, the officer also incorrectly informed the applicant that he could no longer appeal the decision to the Federal Court because it had been 28 days since the decision was made. The applicant believed he had lost his right to appeal until he met with the Deputy Registrar of the IRT on 10 April 1996, who informed him that he should ask the Federal Court to decide whether he could still file an Application for Review.

The court found that the literal construction of s.478 would produce an opposite result to that intended by the legislature. Therefore, an alternative construction was adopted, which required that a notification of the decision for the purposes of s.478 must be a notification which did not or was not calculated to frustrate or negate the entitlement of the person notified of the decision to apply to the Court for its review. The court also found that the power to notify an applicant of the decision must be exercised for the purpose for which it is conferred, and if exercised for an ulterior or improper purpose, the exercise of the power is null, void and of no effect.

In conclusion, the court determined that the application was filed within 28 days of the notification to the applicant of the decision for the purposes of s.478. Therefore, the objection to competency by the respondent failed, and the motion by the respondent for the dismissal of the proceeding was dismissed with costs. The court's decision ensures that the law is accessible to Mr. Wang, unlike Kafka's man from the country.