• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

THE COURT 1 The parties to this appeal have promoted, by consent, orders pursuant to which the appeal be allowed and Orders 2 and 3 of the orders of the primary judge made on 22 September 2021 be set aside. Involving, as it does, an exercise of Commonwealth judicial power in appellate jurisdiction, it is for the Court to be satisfied that the requisite jurisdiction exists and that there is a basis for a conclusion that the order was made in error. 2 There is no doubt that a right of appeal to this Court against the orders concerned exists: s 24(1)(d), Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). 3 The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs has quite properly accepted that, for the reasons given by the Full Court of the Federal Court in EPL20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 173; 395 ALR 36 and Sillars v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 174; 94 ALR 347, the notice of visa cancellation issued by the Minister's department on 4 April 2017, and given to the appellant by hand on 5 April 2017, was not an invitation under s 501CA(3)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The Court notes that concession. It forms a sufficient basis for a conclusion of error in the making of the orders concerned and thus for the allowance of the appeal. 4 It is unnecessary for the disposition of this appeal for the Court to make any findings as to the validity or otherwise of the subsequent invitation, issued to the appellant on 21 December 2021, which the Court was also asked to note. 5 For these reasons, the appeal must be allowed. I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justices Logan, SC Derrington and McEvoy.