//
[2026] FCA 271
General information, not legal advice.
Federal Court of Australia
2026-03-17
Raper J
Original judgment source is linked above.
I certify that the preceding seventy- three (73) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Raper.
Kaur
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 271
AYXJ 5 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1037
Djokovic v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 3; 289 FCR 21
Hasran v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] FCAFC 40; 183 FCR 413
Huynh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 701; 232 FCR 497
Mazhar v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1759; 183 ALR 188
Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v SZNAV [2009] FCAFC 109
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs v Sun [2005] FCAFC 201
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZMTA [2019] HCA 3; 264 CLR 421
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li [2013] HCA 18; 249 CLR 332
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZKTI [2009] HCA 30; 238 CLR 489
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS [2010] HCA 16; 240 CLR 611
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Cho [1999] FCA 946; 92 FCR 315
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v SCAR [2003] FCAFC 126; 128 FCR 553
Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31; 235 CLR 286
Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 67
VUAX v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 158; 238 FCR 588
40. As the Federal Magistrate said at [66], the letter of 5 August 2009 did not convey to the appellant that the Tribunal would not consider anything else that he may choose to put before it in writing.
41. In any event, the appellant did not make clear to the Tribunal what if anything he wished to put before it in addition to his statement of 3 June 2009. Nor did he give evidence before the Federal Magistrate that he read the letter of 5 August 2009 as denying him the opportunity to put any further written material before the Tribunal or as to what he wished to put before it.
42. As Gleeson CJ said in Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Lam [2003] HCA 6; (2003) 195 ALR 502 at [37], procedural fairness is not an abstract concept; it is essentially practical and the concern is to avoid practical injustice. There was no practical injustice in the present case.
43. It follows in our view that there was no denial of procedural fairness.
(2003) 195 ALR 502