Toalei: late evidence did not make character review unfair
The Federal Court rejected a procedural-fairness challenge after considering earlier access and opportunities to respond.
a.
Australia Migration NewsPublished 10 Nov 2026 · Development 9 Nov 2026 · Updated 10 Nov 2026
AT A GLANCE
Late service alone did not establish unfairness.
The two-business-day rules did not bar every response.
Reporting scope: Reasons read in full. Fact-specific judicial review of a May 2025 ART decision under historical Direction 110; not current eligibility guidance.
Decision
On 9 November 2026, Dowling J dismissed Toalei's challenge to ART affirmation of non-revocation of mandatory visa cancellation, with costs.
Why it failed
An 81-page bundle arrived 38 minutes before the hearing, but its contents had been available earlier under summons. The Court considered the identified risk report, overnight consideration, questioning and opportunities to seek more time. Fairness depended on the whole process: [45]–[60].
Responding to evidence
Applying Jagroop, the Court distinguished an applicant's case-in-chief from answers to an unanticipated Ministerial case; sections 500(6H) and (6J) also did not govern submissions: [55]–[58].
Practical implication
Identify access problems promptly and explain what response or extra time is needed. The judgment does not make overnight consideration sufficient in every case.