Federal Court of Australia
JUDGMENT No. .e!.0.2 scssal coal Zone
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION
No. VG 322 of 1992
BETWEEN:
SEKOVE KOROT TUILOMA Firstnamed Applicant
and
KESATA WAOQANIVERA TUILOMA Secondnamed Applicant
and
THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, LOCAL VERNMENT AND ETUNT AFFAIRS Firstnamed Respondent and
THE MEMBERS OF THE MIGRATION INTERNAL REVIEW OFFICE "MIRO"
AS CONSTITUTED ON OR ABOUT 8 OCTOBER_1990
Secondnamed Respondent and
THE MEMBERS OF THE IMMIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL "IRT" AS
CONSTITUTED ON 21 DECEMBER 1990 AND/OR ON 15 MAY 1991
Thirdnamed Respondent
Coram: Ryan J Date: 10 September 1992 Place: Melbourne
EX _TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Ryan J: The applicants have applied for an extension of time in which to seek a review under the Administrative Decisions ) (Judicial Review) Act 1977 ("the Act") of three decisions in respect of applications by them for permanent entry permits after entry. Their applications were originally refused by a delegate
of the Minister and a letter dated 8 June 1990 was written to the
male applicant notifying him of that refusal. Although the applicant had solicitors acting for him whose address had been given to the Department, that letter was not sent to those solicitors but to 5/13 Clarendon Street, Coburg where the applicants were no longer living. It-is unclear precisely when a copy of that letter was ultimately received by the applicants but it seems to be accepted on the material to have been no later than 17 August 1990. On that date Messrs Ravi, James and
Associates, solicitors, wrote to the Department in these terms:
"We now act on behalf of the abovenamed.
The applicant is unwilling to depart Australia in accordance with your letter of 8th June, 1990 and advise that further submissions will be made to you shortly."
On 14 September 1990 the applicant's daughter on behalf of her father, the male applicant, made application to the Migration Internal Review Office ("MIRO") for a review of the decision embodied in the letter dated 8 June 1990. On 8 October 1990 that application was refused by MIRO on the ground that the
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate