Federal Court. Was the Applicant inhibited in his task of seeking judicial review within the 35-day statutory deadline, because the reasons for the decision of the Tribunal followed 21 days after the decision was made? Is it for the Court to set to one side a clearly expressed conclusion by the Tribunal on the basis that it may be a mistake?
Some of the questions to the Federal Court (FCA) were as follows:
Question 1: In deciding under s 477A(2)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) whether to extend the time within which a judicial review application can be made, is the prejudice to the applicant if time is not extended a consideration that will generally be taken into account?
Question 2: Will the fact that a judicial review applicant is in immigration detention necessarily lead to difficulties in communication, which should be considered in deciding whether to grant a time extension to seek judicial review?
Question 3: Was the Applicant inhibited in his task of seeking judicial review within the 35-day statutory deadline, because the reasons for the decision of the Tribunal followed 21 days after the decision was made?
Question 4: Would the Minister "suffer no substantive prejudice if the extension is granted as the outcome of the application will depend on matters of legal submission"?
Question 5: If the decision of the Tribunal is affected by jurisdictional error, will the Applicant suffer considerable prejudice in that his resident return visa will remain cancelled and he may be liable for deportation?
Question 6: At [158] of its reasons, the Tribunal found that the best interests of minor children in Australia weighed "very heavily" in favour of the Applicant. However, it found at [170] that it was not prepared to give that factor significant weight. Is it for the Court to set to one side the clearly expressed conclusion at [158] on the basis that it may be a mistake?
The FCA answered those questions as follows: