Case: Coulton v Holcombe [1986] HCA 33 ; (1986) 162 CLR 1
Outcome: followed
The written submission on the part of the Appellant that there has been a breach of s 359A is also rejected. If the submission is to be construed as an application for leave to amend the Notice of Appeal to raise an additional ground of appeal, the application for leave is refused. It was not an argument raised before the Federal Magistrate and no explanation has been advanced as to why the argument should now be entertained: Coulton v Holcombe [1986] HCA 33 ; (1986) 162 CLR 1. 13 A letter was in fact forwarded to the Appellant pursuant to s 359A inviting him to comment on the matters therein set forth. The letter is that dated 12 April 2007 and provided in relevant part as follows: You are invited to comment, in writing, on the following information: &#8226; When you applied for the Bridging A visas on 22 November 2006, your application for substantive visas (ie Protection visas) had been finally determined. This information is relevant because it may indicate that you do not meet the requirements of cl. 010.211(2)(b). &#8226; When you applied for judicial review of the decision in relation to your protection visas on 24 October 2006, you did not hold Bridging A visa or a Bridging B visa. This information is relevant because it may indicate that you do not meet the requirements of cl. 010.211(3)(c). &#8226; You applied for Protection visas in Class XA on 18 January 2006. This information is relevant because it may indicate that you do not meet the requirements of cl 010.211(4)(b). &#8226; You had not made valid applications for a subclass of a visa prescribed by cl 010.211(5)(a). This information is relevant because it may indicate that you are unable to meet the requirements of cl. 010.211(5)(a). &#8226; You had not made valid applications for a subclass of a visa prescribed by cl 010.211(6)(a). This information is relevant because it may indicate that you are unable to meet the requirements of cl. 010.211(6)(a). &#8226; At the time of the Tribunal's decision, the judicial review of a decision in relation to your application for Protection visas has been completed and there is no evidence that the decision has been appealed. This information is relevant because it may indicate that you do not meet the requirements of cl. 010.211(3)(d) and therefore cl. 010.221. If the intent of the letter was to invite comments from the Appellant in relation to the matters raised, it is (with respect) far from satisfactory. The letter, not surprisingly, has all the hallmarks of being written by a person with experience and detailed and extensive knowledge of the Migration Act and Migration Regulations . But it is a letter written to a non-lawyer and a person (at the very least) not fluent or conversant with the English language. Nowhere in the letter is there a reference to the clauses referred to being provisions to be found in the Migration Regulations . The origin or source of the clauses referred to would remain a mystery to the reader. Nowhere in the letter are the provisions of those clauses of the Regulations set forth, and a copy of the Regulations or an extract is not annexed. Those with access to the three volumes of the current Migration Regulations may also experience difficulty in finding the clauses of present relevance. Even an educated person may well have difficulty in making any meaningful comment in such circumstances. A letter inviting a person to comment upon undisclosed provisions is, it is considered, not much of an " invitation to comment".