Case: H v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2002) 118 FCR 153
Outcome: distinguished
support of the contention that a subsequent notification cancels the effect of an earlier one, the respondent relied on H v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2002) 118 FCR 153. There notification had first been sent to the appellant's agent and was later handed to the appellant in person. Notification to the agent gave the appellant more time in which to lodge his application for review. The Refugee Review Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground that it was out of time. The primary judge dismissed an appeal from that decision. The appellant's appeal was upheld by the Full Court. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's decision so far as it concerned personal notification, but said that the Tribunal had overlooked the notification to the agent. At [9] their Honours said: On the basis of this notification, there are two alternative bases for concluding that the application for review was within time. The first is that the notification to the migration agent was the only relevant notification of the decision, so that the application for review could be lodged at any time before 14 November. This approach assumes that once the Minister first notified the appellant of the decision, that exhausted the Minister's obligation under s 66. If that be correct, any further "notifications" (for example, by personally serving the appellant with a copy of the decision), would not be notifications under the statute and would have no legal consequence. The second basis for holding the application to be within time assumes that the second notification cannot be ignored, and that it brought into operation a second timetable within which the applicant could file a notice of review. In that event the applicant has been given two inconsistent timetables within which to make application for review and, in the absence of any statutory basis for giving one priority over the other, the appellant was entitled to choose the timetable that best suited him. That is what occurred in this case, albeit the appellant did not know he was making a choice. In Zhang v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCAFC 151 ; (2007) 161 FCR 419 the appellant relied on the second basis in H , which the Full Court described at [23] as an "ambitious claim". At [25] their Honours said it was unnecessary to express any view on the correctness or otherwise of the second basis in H and in particular "whether there can be two operative and effective notifications made". They were of the opinion that in the case before them two methods of notification were not utilised giving rise to inconsistent timetables. In my view the Full Court in H was not endorsing both alternative bases. Only one can be the correct approach. An assumption is part of each of them. I understand the Court to have said that on whichever of the two bases argued was the correct one, the application for review was within time. It was thus unnecessary to decide which was the true view. For the reasons I have given, the first basis is to be preferred. That would appear to have been the opinion of the Court in Zhang .