Federal Court. Can it be said that "the absence of an express finding in a Tribunal’s reasons on matters referred to in a ministerial direction does not necessitate the conclusion that no finding was made", as "a decision-maker may not refer to a particular matter because it has been found to be immaterial, or of no real significance" and as "there was no obligation on the part of the Tribunal to refer in its reasons to immaterial matters about which no substantive submissions were made, and which were not the subject of relevant evidence"?
Some of the questions to the Federal Court (FCA) were as follows:
Question 1: Can it be said that "the absence of an express finding in a Tribunal’s reasons on matters referred to in a ministerial direction does not necessitate the conclusion that no finding was made", as "a decision-maker may not refer to a particular matter because it has been found to be immaterial, or of no real significance" and as "there was no obligation on the part of the Tribunal to refer in its reasons to immaterial matters about which no substantive submissions were made, and which were not the subject of relevant evidence"?
Question 2: Can it be said that, "in circumstances where the Tribunal accepted, on what it characterised as “strong evidence”, that the impact upon the applicant’s wife would be “significantly” adverse if the applicant were removed from Australia and that that consideration was given “substantial weight in favour of revocation of the delegate’s decision” ..., the submission that the Tribunal overlooked the evidence, or failed to give it sufficient consideration, or failed to give consideration to the impact on the applicant’s wife sufficient weight, must be rejected"?
The FCA answered those questions as follows: