DDI22 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1732

1. The applicant seeks an extension of time (pursuant to s 477(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act)) within which to seek judicial review of a decision of the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) made on 27 June 2022. The Tribunal found that it did not have jurisdiction to review an earlier decision of the first respondent (the Minister) refusing to grant the applicant a Protection (Class XA) (Subclass 866) visa (the visa). As will be explained, before the Court can consider the substantive application for judicial review, the applicant must satisfy the Court that it is in the interests of the administration of justice that he be granted an extension of time.
2. For the reasons set out below, the Court has determined that an extension of time should not be granted.

1. The applicant is a citizen of China (Court Book (CB) 7). He arrived in Australia in April 2018 as the holder of a student visa (CB 8).
2. On 4 November 2018, the applicant applied for the visa the subject of the application presently before the Court (CB 1-18). In that visa application, the applicant answered "no" when asked if he authorised another person to receive correspondence on his behalf, agreed to receiving correspondence from the Department of Home Affairs (the Department) by email, and provided the Department with an email address (the nominated email address) to enable it to do so (CB 5-6).
3. On 28 September 2021, the Department wrote to the applicant (via email sent to his nominated email address and pursuant to s 56 of the Act) and invited him to provide additional information in relation to his visa application (CB 35-42). The Department's invitation letter advised the applicant that his claims lacked "substantiating details and supporting documentation" and invited the applicant to provide "further information" and "any documentary evidence" (CB 42).
4. The applicant did not respond to the Department's invitation letter or provide any additional information in relation to his visa application (CB 50).
5. On 8 November 2021, a delegate of the Minister refused to grant the applicant the visa (CB 48-55). The delegate found that the applicant did not satisfy ss 36(2) or 36(2)(aa) of the Act (CB 53-54).
6. The applicant was notified of the delegate's decision by letter dated 8 November 2021, which was sent to the applicant via email at his nominated email address (CB 43-47). The notification letter advised the applicant of his review rights and relevantly stated as follows (CB 45):

The Department cannot consider your visa application any further. However, you are entitled to apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for a merits review of this decision. An application for merits review of this decision must be given to the AAT within the period of 28 calendar days, commencing on the day you are taken to have received this letter.

As this letter was sent to you by email, you are taken to have received it at the end of the day it was transmitted.

The time mentioned above in which you may apply to the AAT for merits review of this decision is prescribed by law and cannot be extended.

1. On 19 April 2022, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate's decision (CB 56-61). In that review application, the applicant asked that all correspondence be sent to him (as the review applicant) and again provided his nominated email address to enable to the Tribunal to do so (CB 60-61).
2. Later that same day (being on 19 April 2022), the Tribunal wrote to the applicant inviting him to comment on the validity of his Tribunal application (CB 62-64). That invitation letter noted that the application had not been lodged within the requisite 28-day time period as prescribed by reg 4.31(2) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). The applicant was invited to comment in writing by 3 May 2022 (CB 63).
3. On 6 May 2022, the applicant responded by email to the Tribunal as follows (without alteration) (CB 65):

i did the appeal ,once i have receive the decision and the decision is very important for me . please kindly reconsiderate my situation .

1. On 27 June 2022, the Tribunal determined that it did not have jurisdiction to review the applicant's matter because his application had not been made within the statutory timeframe (CB 68-69). The applicant was notified of that decision by letter dated 27 June 2022 (sent to the applicant via email at his nominated email address) (CB 66-67).
2. On 13 September 2022, the applicant filed an application for judicial review in this Court. That application sought review of the Tribunal's decision pursuant to s 476 of the Act.
3. Section 477 of the Act requires that an application for judicial review be filed within 35 days from the date of the Tribunal's decision. Accordingly, the application for judicial review was filed 43 days out of time. The applicant sought an order under s 477(2) that the time for making such an application be extended.

1. The Tribunal's decision in this matter is seven paragraphs long. Given the conciseness of the Tribunal decision, it is beneficial to set out that decision in in full (CB 69):

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 8 November 2021 to refuse to grant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 19 April 2022. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has found that it has no jurisdiction to review the decision.

2. As the applicant was not in immigration detention on the day the applicant was notified of the decision, an application for review of the decision had to be made within 28 days, commencing on that day: reg 4.31(2) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations).

3. The material before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant was notified of the decision by letter dated 8 November 2021 and dispatched by email. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was notified of the decision in accordance with the statutory requirements.

4. On 19 April 2022 the Tribunal forwarded a No Jurisdiction (NJ) letter to the applicant See Doc ID number 9672844 . The letter requested a written response by 3 May 2022. The applicant provided a written response out of time. It advised the following: "i did the appeal ,once i have receive the decision and the decision is very important for me . please kindly reconsiderate my situation." The Tribunal considered this response.

5. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is taken to have been notified of the decision on 8 November 2021: s 494C of the Act. Therefore the prescribed period to apply for review ended on 5 December 2021.

6. As the application for review was not received by the Tribunal until 19 April 2022 the application for review was not made in accordance with the relevant legislation and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in this matter.

DECISION

7. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.

1. The application for judicial review filed by the applicant on 13 September 2022 contained two grounds of review as follows (without alteration):
   1. The Tribunal (AAT) had made jurisdictional errors in decisions regarding my appeal. The AAT had incorrectly considered my comment regarding the validity of my application, which I explained that I made the appeal when I had received the decision.
   2. Without considering my response properly, my appeal was wrongly reviewed and I did not have a chance to explain my circumstances to the AAT.
2. As outlined above, the applicant also seeks an extension of time. The applicant was required to file his application to this Court for review of the Tribunal's decision within 35 days of the date of the Tribunal's decision (as set out in s 477(1) of the Act). The Tribunal's decision in this matter was made on 27 June 2022 (CB 68-69). Any application for judicial review was required to have been made by 1 August 2022. Unfortunately, the applicant did not file his application for judicial review until 13 September 2022 and the application was therefore made 43 days out of time.
3. Nevertheless, this Court may extend the time within which an applicant can seek judicial review if an application for an extension of time is made in writing specifying why the applicant considers that it is necessary, in the interests of the administration of justice, that the Court make an order extending time and the Court is so satisfied.
4. Here, the applicant made an application for an extension of time in writing, setting out three grounds as follows (without alteration):
   1. I was not properly notified of the decision by the department, causing me to miss out the appeal period. This had led to my appeal not being reviewed fairly by the AAT.
   2. I was only made known later on that I have the right to appeal to the Court regarding my case as I did not have access to legal advice nor lawyer to advise me on legal matters.
   3. I also did not know that I could apply for the exemption of filing fee from the court due to financial hardship. I could not afford the filing fees if I did not apply for exemption.
5. The applicant appeared before the Court on 9 September 2025 (via video link) without legal representation but with the assistance of a Mandarin interpreter. The Court confirmed with the applicant that he had received a copy of the Court Book and the Minister's written submissions.
6. The materials before the Court include the application for judicial review and supporting affidavit filed by the applicant on 13 September 2022 (the affidavit being taken as read and in evidence at the hearing on 9 September 2025), a Court Book numbering 73 pages (marked as Exhibit 1 at the hearing), and written submissions filed on behalf of the Minister on 1 September 2025.
7. The Court took some time to explain that it would listen to whatever the applicant had to say in respect of why he said he should be granted an extension of time, but that the following matters were relevant (consistent with Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen [1984] FCA 176; (1984) 3 FCR 344 (Hunter Valley); Tu'uta Katoa v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] HCA 28; (2022) 276 CLR 579):

(a) the length of the delay;

(b) whether the explanation for the delay is adequate;

(c) whether the Minister would suffer any prejudice due to the delay; and

(d) whether the proposed substantive application for judicial review has merit.

1. The Court also explained to the applicant that it would consider whether the application for judicial review had merit at a "reasonably impressionistic level" (MZABP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 1391; (2015) 242 FCR 585 at [62]). It was explained to the applicant that the Court would consider whether the applicant had identified an arguable case, even if that case had not been fully developed.
2. The Court also took some time to explain that, in assessing whether the application for judicial review had merit, it could not undertake a merits review of the Tribunal's decision (Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 272) and could only consider whether or not the Tribunal's decision revealed jurisdictional error. The Court explained that in migration decisions such as the decision being challenged, common categories of alleged jurisdictional error include:

(a) where the decision-maker identifies the wrong issue or asks the wrong question (Craig v State of South Australia [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163 at 178 (Craig));

(b) where the decision-maker ignores relevant material (Craig at 178);

(c) where the decision-maker relies on irrelevant material (Craig at 178);

(d) where the decision-maker fails to follow mandatory procedures (SAAP v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCA 24; (2005) 228 CLR 294 at 354-355) including compliance with notification requirements;

(e) where the decision-maker fails to consider the entirety of an applicant's claims (or integers of the claims) made (Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZRKT [2013] FCA 317; (2013) 212 FCR 99 at [111]);

(f) where the decision-maker shows actual or apprehended bias (SZRUI v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship [2013] FCAFC 80 at [2]); and

(g) where the decision is illogical, irrational or unreasonable (Djokovic v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2022) 289 FCR 21 at 27-28; Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611 at 648; Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li [2012] HCA 61; (2013) 249 CLR 332 at [26]- [28]; Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Singh [2014] FCAFC 1; (2014) 231 FCR 437 at 445).

1. However, it was also explained to the applicant that this was not an exhaustive list, and he should attempt to explain to the Court why he thought the Tribunal had fallen into error.
2. Against this background, the applicant told the Court that, because his level of English proficiency was "not high enough", he needed to "consult other people" in relation to his application, which resulted in a delay in him filing his application with this Court.
3. When asked about whether there was an error in the Tribunal's decision (and consequently an arguable case of jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal), the applicant said that he did not have "any further points to make".

1. Turning first to the length of the delay, as outlined above, the delay in this matter was 43 days. The Court notes that an extension of time is not granted as a right, as per the principles in Gallo v Dawson (1990) 64 ALJR 458 at [2]. Further, the limitation periods specified in the Act are the "general rule" and any grant of an extension of time is an exception to that rule: Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541 at 553.
2. As detailed above, the delay in this matter is 43 days. In the Court's view, that delay is not significant and this weighs in favour of granting the extension of time.

1. As outlined above, the applicant, in his application for an extension of time, explained that:

(a) he was not properly notified of the delegate's decision by the Department which resulted in his application to the Tribunal being made out of time;

(b) he did not have any legal assistance and only became aware at a later date that he could apply to the Court for review; and

(c) he was not aware that he could apply for an exemption of the Court's filing fee on the basis of financial hardship, and he was otherwise unable to afford the Court's filing fee.

1. In his oral submissions before this Court, the applicant stated that his English language proficiency was low and he needed to speak with others about his application which led to the delay.
2. The Minister submitted that neither the second nor third grounds raised by the applicant (above) could be made out on the evidence before the Court.
3. To the extent that the applicant suggested he was not properly notified of the delegate's decision, the Court notes that any issue with notification in that regard would not have resulted in a delay in the applicant filing his judicial review application. The issue of notification of the delegate's decision will be addressed further below when the Court assesses the merits of the applicant's substantive review application.
4. Insofar as the applicant raised the issue of his lack of proficiency with the English language, the Court notes that the Federal Court has previously stated (MZZIV v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2013] FCA 1203 at [5]):

Sometimes, matters such as lack of legal representation, little or no proficiency in English, and little or no understanding of the Australian legal system may combine to suggest a delay is explicable.

The Court will thus take the applicant's circumstances (as a whole) into consideration when making a determination in relation to the reasons for the delay in this matter.

1. To the extent that the applicant suggested he was unable to file his application for judicial review because he was facing financial hardship, while the Court accepts the applicant may have had such difficulties, the Court also notes that claimed impecuniosity is generally not an acceptable explanation for failing to lodge a judicial review application within the requisite time period (SZMNO v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 797 at [24]- [26]). There is also no evidence before this Court to suggest that the applicant contacted the Court registry to discuss this issue or to seek any assistance in this regard.
2. Insofar as the applicant claimed he was not aware that he had a right to appeal that decision to this Court, the Court notes that the materials before it indicate that the applicant was notified of the Tribunal's decision on 27 June 2022 (CB 66-67). The Tribunal notified the applicant of its decision by transmitting the documents to the applicant's nominated email address (being the last known address provided by the applicant in relation to the review). This was a valid method of distribution specified under s 441A of the Act.
3. The Court also notes that the Tribunal sent the applicant a fact sheet with that notification letter (CB 70-72). That fact sheet outlined the applicant's review rights, as follows (CB 70-71) (emphasis in original):

If we decide that we have no jurisdiction to review the delegate's decision, we have decided that we have no power to review the delegate's decision.

If you think that our decision is wrong in law, you may consider seeking judicial review in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

...

Review of decisions

Applicants can apply to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (the Court) for judicial review of our decisions. The Court will consider whether we made a jurisdictional error. If you wish to apply for review, you must do so within 35 days of the date of our decision. If you require an extension of time, you must ask for it in the application and explain why. The Court will decide whether or not to grant an extension of time.

1. As can be seen from the extracts above, the fact sheet provided by the Tribunal clearly outlined the applicant's appeal rights to this Court and the timeframe within which such an application was required to be made.
2. Whilst the Court acknowledges that Court processes can be confusing for unrepresented litigants (particularly those for whom English is not their first language), the Court notes comments made by the Federal Court in SZSDA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCA 1319; (2012) 135 ALD 17 at [38] as follows:

In the present case, there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay. Whilst one may have considerable sympathy for a litigant in person who does not know that he may have a capacity to bring a judicial review application in the Federal Magistrates Court and therefore fails to do so within the stipulated timeframe, ignorance of those requirements (without more) is generally not regarded as a satisfactory explanation for delay. Accordingly, in the present case, it is fair to say that there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay of almost eight months.

1. As explained by the Federal Court (above), an applicant seeking judicial review of a decision made by the Tribunal must take the necessary steps and do what is required of them. Unfortunately, the applicant in this matter failed to do so. There is, for example, no evidence before the Court to suggest that the applicant sought assistance from the Court or the Tribunal about how to lodge an application for review with the Court or what was required of him if he disagreed with the Tribunal's decision.
2. The Court does not consider that the explanations provided by the applicant in this matter are satisfactory, even in the context of a reasonably modest delay.
3. This weighs against the extension of time being granted.

1. The Minister accepted that there would be no prejudice to him if the extension of time were granted, save for the significant public interest in the finality of judicial decisions (relying upon the decision in Re Commonwealth of Australia; Ex parte Marks [2000] HCA 67; (2000) 177 ALR 491 at 495-496 [15]-[17]).
2. The Court acknowledges that the absence of prejudice does not, in itself, justify the grant of an extension of time (see Hunter Valley at 349). However, the Court does not view this factor as weighing against the grant of an extension of time.

1. Noting that the applicant was unrepresented in this matter, the Court has endeavoured to remain alert to the possibility of an arguable case of jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal which might support an extension being granted (MZAIB v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 1392; (2015) 238 FCR 158 (MZAIB)).

1. As outlined above, the applicant raised two proposed grounds of review in his application for judicial review. Both grounds essentially suggested that the Tribunal failed to properly consider the applicant's evidence regarding the validity of his review application filed with the Tribunal.
2. The Minister argued that the applicant's proposed grounds could not be made out. The Minister submitted that the Tribunal expressly considered the applicant's response to the Tribunal's invitation to comment letter and that the applicant's response did not raise any defect in the notification of the delegate's decision.
3. The Court accepts the Minister's submissions for the following reasons.
4. As set out above, on 19 April 2022, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant inviting him to comment on the validity of his Tribunal application (CB 62-64).
5. On 6 May 2022, the applicant responded by email to the Tribunal as follows (without alteration) (CB 65):

i did the appeal ,once i have receive the decision and the decision is very important for me . please kindly reconsiderate my situation .

1. The Tribunal had regard to that response in its reasons as follows (CB 69 at [4]):

On 19 April 2022 the Tribunal forwarded a No Jurisdiction (NJ) letter to the applicant See Doc ID number 9672844 . The letter requested a written response by 3 May 2022. The applicant provided a written response out of time. It advised the following: "i did the appeal ,once i have receive the decision and the decision is very important for me . please kindly reconsiderate my situation." The Tribunal considered this response.

1. It is evident from the Tribunal's reasons that it received and considered the applicant's response. Ultimately, however, the Tribunal determined that the applicant's application for review was not received by the Tribunal within the requisite time period. As a result, the Tribunal found that it did not have jurisdiction to review the applicant's matter.
2. The Court is satisfied that the Tribunal properly considered the applicant's evidence regarding the validity of his review application.
3. No arguable case of jurisdictional error arises in this regard.

Whether the Tribunal was correct to find that it did not have jurisdiction in this case

1. In its duty to the applicant (and in accordance with the principles set out in MZAIB), the Court must also determine whether or not the applicant was properly notified of the delegate's decision and, if so, determine whether the applicant applied for review of the delegate's decision within the prescribed period.
2. It is therefore useful to set out the relevant legislation and authorities in this regard.

1. The Court recently summarised those matters in the decision of BCL21 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FedCFamC2G 984. That analysis applies equally to this case and (with minor amendments) is repeated below.
2. Section 66 of the Act governed the notification of decisions made by the Minister when refusing to grant a visa and (at the time of the delegate's decision) relevantly provided as follows:

(1) When the Minister grants or refuses to grant a visa, he or she is to notify the applicant of the decision in the prescribed way.

(2) Notification of a decision to refuse an application for a visa must:

(a) if the grant of the visa was refused because the applicant did not satisfy a criterion for the visa - specify that criterion; and

(b) if the grant of the visa was refused because a provision of this Act or the regulations prevented the grant of the visa - specify that provision; and

(c) unless subsection (3) applies to the application - give written reasons (other than non-disclosable information) why the criterion was not satisfied or the provision prevented the grant of the visa; and

(d) if the applicant has a right to have the decision reviewed under Part 5 or 7 or section 500 - state:

(i) that the decision can be reviewed; and

(ii) the time in which the application for review may be made; and

(iii) who can apply for the review; and

(iv) where the application for review can be made

...

1. The time within which an applicant (who is not in immigration detention) was required to file an application for review of a decision to refuse a protection visa was governed by s 412 of the Act and r 4.31 of the Regulations, which relevantly provided as follows:

(1) An application for review of a Part 7 - reviewable decision must:

...

(b) be given to the Tribunal within the prescribed period, being a period ending not later than 28 days after the notification of the decision; and

...

...

(2) For paragraph 412(1)(b) of the Act, if an applicant is not in immigration detention on the day the applicant is notified of a Part 7 - reviewable decision, the period in which an application for review of the decision must be given to the Tribunal by or for the applicant is 28 days, commencing on the day the applicant is notified of the decision.

1. Sections 494B and 494C identified the methods by which the Minister could give documents to a person and when a person was taken to have received that document. In respect of documents sent to a person by email, s 494C provided as follows:

(5) If the Minister gives a document to a person by the method in subsection 494B(5) (which involves transmitting the document by fax, email or other electronic means), the person is taken to have received the document at the end of the day on which the document is transmitted.

1. As the applicant in this case was notified by email of the delegate's decision on 8 November 2021, he was taken to have received the notice at the end of that day. The prescribed period for review of 28 days thus ended on 5 December 2021. The applicant did not lodge his application for review with the Tribunal until 19 April 2022.
2. As a result, unless the applicant was not properly notified in the prescribed way, his application for review by the Tribunal was not lodged within the prescribed time period and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to review his application.
3. In order to satisfy the notification requirements set out in s 66(2)(d) of the Act, the notification was required to state:

(a) that the decision could be reviewed;

(b) the time in which the application for review was required to be made;

(c) who could apply for the review; and

(d) where the application for review could made.

1. In DFQ17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 64; (2019) 270 FCR 492 at [58] (DFQ17), Perram J concluded that the word 'state', when used in s 66(2) of the Act, meant that the relevant information must be set out in a way that is both complete and clear.
2. There have been a number of authorities which have considered the question of whether an applicant has been provided with effective notification of a decision. In CDC23 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FedCFamC2G 574 at [82], Judge Kendall helpfully summarised the following principles which can be gleaned from those relevant authorities:

(a) Where the statement in the letter which outlines the time in which an applicant is taken to have been notified of the decision is found beneath a disconnected and incorrect heading (such as 'Financial and Case Worker Assistance'), the notification will lack clarity (DFQ17; BMY18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 189; (2019) 271 FCR 517 (BMY18)).

(b) Where the statement outlining the time in which an applicant is taken to have been notified of the decision is found beneath a heading that is relevant to an applicant's right of review (such as under the heading 'Lodging an Application for Review'), this is sufficiently clear (Ali v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 1102 (Ali)).

(c) Where the statement outlining the time in which an applicant is taken to have been notified of the decision is found beneath a heading that sufficiently identifies this information, and uses linking or referable language to the review rights (such as under the heading 'Receiving this Letter'), the notification is clear (Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2020] FCAFC 31) (Singh 2020).

(d) The letter should be read as a whole. Hence, the fact that different pieces of information may be spread across a number of pages is not decisive in relation to the level of clarity (Ali). Where the layout is confusing, however (for example, unclear headings are used), the separation of the information may result in a lack of clarity (BMY18).

(e) Whether a notification is "clear" will turn upon the language and terms in which the notification is expressed when read as a whole by a person exercising a reasonable level of care (Singh 2020; Ali). It is not significant that an applicant may not speak English as a first language. The question is whether the letter conveys the required information.

1. Further, in Sandor v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 434 at [51]- [52] (Sandor), Markovic J found that, where notification is sent to an authorised recipient, the use of the words "you are taken to have received" were not clear as it required the recipient of the notification to "piece together the facts which would allow [them] to know the time in which an application may be made".
2. In this matter, the notification letter clearly identified that the applicant did not meet the relevant criteria for the grant of a protection visa because the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant satisfied s 36(2) of the Act. The notification explained that that provision required the applicant to be a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations or a member of the same family unit as such a person. The notification advised that more detailed information was included in the decision record, which was attached to that notification (CB 44).
3. Under the heading 'Review Rights', the notification set out the following information (without alteration) (CB 44-45):

The Department cannot consider your visa application any further. However, you are entitled to apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for a merits review of this decision. An application for merits review of this decision must be given to the AAT within the period of 28 calendar days, commencing on the day you are taken to have received this letter.

As this letter was sent to you by email, you are taken to have received it at the end of the day it was transmitted.

The time mentioned above in which you may apply to the AAT for merits review of this decision is prescribed by law and cannot be extended.

1. The notification then went on to provide detailed information in respect of how the applicant could make an application for merits review under the heading 'Lodging an application for merits review' (CB 45-46).
2. The Court accepts that the notification in this matter was complete and clear in the sense identified by the authorities (outlined above). It is not apt to confuse or mislead the applicant. Under a clear heading of 'Review Rights', the applicant was informed that he had a right to seek merits review in the Tribunal, that he needed to do so within 28 days of receiving the notification and that time could not be extended, and when he was taken to have received that notification. He was then also given clear information, once again under a clear heading, of how and where to make an application.
3. The Court also accepts that the error identified in Sandor does not arise in this matter because the notification was sent directly to the applicant and not to an authorised recipient.
4. Having regard to the matters outlined above, the Court accepts that the applicant was properly and effectively notified of the delegate's decision. He was notified of his right to seek merits review by the Tribunal and the timeframe within which such an application was required to be made. He failed to do so and the Tribunal made the only decision open to it.
5. In those circumstances, the Court does not consider that there is any arguable case of jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal or, consequently, any merit to the substantive application.

1. The Court finds that it is not in the interests of the administration of justice for the Court to grant the applicant an extension of time in this matter.
2. Accordingly, the application for an extension of time is dismissed.

I certify that the preceding seventy-five (75) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Gerrard.