# When documents are taken to comply with content requirements > act-s494E — as in force on 2026-06-04 — C2026C00232 · Compilation No. 171 — https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2026C00232/latest/text 494E When documents are taken to comply with content requirements (1) This section applies in relation to a document if: (a) a provision of this Act or the regulations requires or permits the Minister to give the document to a person; and (b) a provision of this Act or the regulations requires (the content requirements) the document to include particular information. (2) For the purposes of this Act or the regulations, the document is taken to comply with the content requirements if: (a) there is substantial compliance with those requirements; and (b) the failure to strictly comply with those requirements does not, or is not likely to, cause substantial prejudice to the person’s rights (including, but not limited to, rights to seek review in connection with the matter to which the document relates). (3) Subsection (2) applies despite any other provision of this Act or the regulations. (4) Without limiting paragraph (2)(a), there may be substantial compliance with the content requirements even if there is an error, omission, misstatement or misdescription in the document. (5) Without limiting paragraph (2)(b), a failure by the person to: (a) exercise any rights (including, but not limited to, rights to seek review) in connection with the matter to which the document relates; or (b) take any other action (including, but not limited to, the making of representations) in connection with the matter to which the document relates; is not on its own to be taken to imply that the failure to strictly comply with the content requirements has caused substantial prejudice to the person’s rights (including, but not limited to, rights to seek review in connection with the matter to which the document relates). Example 1: Andrew, George and Daniel each make an application for the grant of a visa. The Minister refuses to grant each applicant the visa and gives notice of the refusal decision to each applicant. The notice states that the applicant may make an application for review of the refusal decision within 30 days after the notice is received by the applicant. While the notice substantially complies with the requirement in the Act to state the period within which an application for review must be made, the notice misstates the period. The correct period is 28 days after the notice is received by the applicant. Andrew makes an application for review of the refusal decision 25 days after receiving the notice. As the misstatement in the notice does not cause substantial prejudice to Andrew’s right to seek review, it is intended that subsection (2) would apply in relation to the notice given to Andrew. George makes an application for review of the refusal decision 29 days after receiving the notice. The misstatement in the notice causes substantial prejudice to George’s right to seek review as the application for review is not made within the required period but is made within the misstated period specified in the notice. It is intended that subsection (2) would not apply in relation to the notice given to George. Daniel makes an application for review of the refusal decision 40 days after receiving the notice. The misstatement in the notice does not cause substantial prejudice to Daniel’s right to seek review as the application for review is made well after the required period. It is intended that subsection (2) would apply in relation to the notice given to Daniel. Example 2: Anne applies for a visa and has an authorised recipient under section 494D. The Minister refuses to grant Anne the visa and gives notice of the refusal decision by sending an email to the authorised recipient. The authorised recipient receives the notice and 2 days later forwards it on to Anne. The notice states that Anne may make an application for review of the refusal decision within 21 days after the day Anne receives the notice. The notice does not explain that the effect of sections 494C and 494D is that the period of 21 days begins to run on the day after the day the notice is received by the authorised recipient, rather than by Anne. While the notice substantially complies with the requirement in the Act to state the period within which an application for review must be made, the notice misdescribes when that period begins to run. Anne makes an application for review of the refusal decision 35 days after receiving the notice. The misdescription in the notice does not cause substantial prejudice to Anne’s right to seek review as the application for review is made well after the required period. It is intended that subsection (2) would apply in relation to the notice given to the authorised recipient.