Case Law Updates

Federal Court. Was it "legally unreasonable for the Authority not to consider getting 'new information' by clicking on the link that was provided as the source of what was described by the appellant as screenshots from the appellant's public Facebook account"?

Federal Circuit and Family Court. The Minister sought to set-off a costs order made in the applicant's favour out of a costs order made in the Minister's favour in previous court proceedings. Can it be said that "there is a public interest in people challenging governmental decisions being adequately legally represented, and allowing a set-off in circumstances such as the present may discourage appropriate lawyers from acting"?

Federal Court. Can it be said that "the detail with which the Tribunal addresses other matters, not obviously more pressing than this claim, gives rise to the inference that it overlooked the claim"? Further, although it was open to the Tribunal not to accept a claim, or to give it little weight, can it be said that "it would not have been rational or reasonable for the Tribunal to form such a dismissive view of this claim that it did not warrant any mention in its reasons"?

Federal Court. In the context of assessing the national interest, would the threshold of being a danger to the community only be met if the applicant was able to be a part of that community and neither in gaol nor in immigration detention?

Federal Court. Does s 36(1C)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) call for "comparative exercise to assess whether the grant of a protection visa would result in an increase in the danger to the community posed by the applicant over the danger to the community posed by the applicant if a protection visa were not granted"?

Federal Court (Full Court). Does the decision to be made as to whether to revoke a visa cancellation under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) require "each of the factors that are listed in s 8.4(4) [of Direction 99] to be taken into account as part of the final weighing exercise to be undertaken in order to comply with the direction"?

Federal Court (Full Court). Is it an element of the complementary protection criterion that the visa applicant have a subjective fear of harm? Is "a person’s subjective belief is a mandatory irrelevant consideration for the purposes of the complementary protection criteria"?

Federal Court. Was it the Respondent, not the Hon Karen Andrews MP (the now former Minister), who had the responsibility to answer the interrogatories administered by the Registrar? Could Ms Andrews be compelled under Part 21 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) to answer the interrogatories? Was Ms Andrews authorised under r 21.04(1) of the Rules to make an affidavit verifying her answers? Could Ms Andrews be compelled to attend before the court or a registrar for oral interrogation under r 21.05(b) of the Rules?

Federal Court. Can it be said that "the AAT’s exercise of discretion under s359C of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) miscarried and through the failure to exercise the discretion properly the AAT failed to conduct a proper review under Part V of that Act"? Can it be said that the "AAT was unreasonable and/or that the AAT failed to conduct a proper review under Part V of the Migration Act"?

Federal Court. Does the phrase 'family violence' in Direction 99 have different meanings depending on the context in which it appears? Was the applicant's conduct relevant to paras 8.1.1(1)(a) and 8.5 of Direction 99 only capable of weighing against him?