Following a recent decision of the AAT involving a long term PR ( 70 yrs) and what appears to be a communication problem...there is a lesson in this for all of us...
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2020/31.html
In this case the Applicant appointed his Solicitors and a form 956 was on foot and communication was opened...at some stage in the future the same solicitor engaged in further communication with the Department but used a different email address ( it was different to the form 956) and no new or fresh 956 was put on foot.
There was an exchange of emails between the Department ( VACCU) and the Solicitor, using the new email address....subsequently the Department notified of the decision to refuse to revoke the cancellation and sent the email decision to the new email address of the Solicitor. (That was different to the form 956 nominated email address)
For reasons that are not clear an application for review by the AAT was filed out of time!
The legal issue was notification but I think that the lesson here is as follows:
1. Nominate a contact address on a form 956
2. Do not communicate from any other email address
If I were the Solicitor of record I would argue that the form 956 constituted the relevant authority of the appointment and the consent to communicate by email was necessarily limited to the email address nominated on the form 956 and that any incidental communication did not constitute authority or consent to communicate to an address other than the one nominated on the form 956.
First rule of fight club?
Keep it Simple Stupid.(KISS)
OR
If you absolutely positively must communicate with Immi with a different email address ask your IT person to ensure that all emails whether sent to your old email address or new email address all appear on the same screen in front of you....