Goldie v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2014] AATA 30 | Case summary

Goldie v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2014] AATA 30

Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia|2014-01-23|Before: Member Bernard J, Downes JJ

View original source

General information, not legal advice.

Judgment (4 paragraphs)

[1]

The applicant was represented by lawyers at the hearing of reinstatement. They argued the learned deputy president fell into error when he inferred the applicant was not interested in progressing his application for review. The applicant is serious about the case, I was told, but inexperience prevented him from adequately explaining his commitment to the deputy president at the dismissal hearing. It was suggested it would be procedurally unfair to let the dismissal stand.
The power in s 42A(10) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 is directed to cases where it would be unfair to deny an applicant the opportunity to progress his application as a result of some unfortunate error that tells us nothing about the strength of the case or the applicant's commitment to seeing the matter through to conclusion. That explains why the Full Federal Court in Goldie v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 367 said the expression "error" was not confined to errors on the part of the Tribunal. But Wilcox and Downes JJ in Goldie added there must actually be an error attending the act of dismissal before the discretion to reinstate was enlivened: at [28]-[29]. The existence of such an error is a jurisdictional fact.
I am not satisfied Deputy President Hack's decision was attended by error. He set out the procedural history and drew an inference from those facts. There is no suggestion he has misstated or misunderstood that history. He was aware Mr Byrt was unrepresented and that Mr Byrt had other proceedings on foot. The deputy president drew a conclusion that was plainly open to him.

Goldie v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (4 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (4)

Byrt and Commissioner of Taxation [2014] AATA 30 (23 January 2014)