Case Law Updates

Federal Court. Does the expression “child” in s 501(6)(e)(i) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) mean a person under the age of 16? If illogicality is established in a finding of fact made on the way to the ultimate decision, instead of illogicality in the ultimate decision itself, and the illogicality is not material by definition, is it only material if it was central (of being “critical” or “not immaterial”) to the ultimate decision?

Federal Court. Applicant could not be removed from Australia, due to effect of NZYQ. In the context of a refusal of a protection visa under s 501(1), Minister submitted to Tribunal that “that there were no third country removal options for the Applicant”. On judicial review, Applicant argued that was not true. Does Applicant have a proper basis to seek discovery of what information was available to the Minister concerning the impending third country reception arrangement with the Republic of Nauru at the time of the Tribunal hearing?

High Court (single Justice). Is a protection visa applicant required to pick the correct "label" to describe his or her claims?

High Court (single Justice). In determining whether to grant the plaintiff a time extension to file his judicial review application, does he disclose an arguable basis for relief in arguing that the delegate made an error in treating a Code 35 NPC as not satisfying the request?

High Court (single Justice). Can it be said that, although "a separate visa was granted to each of the First, Second and Third Plaintiffs, nevertheless the Second and Third Plaintiffs were each a "holder" of the Protection visa granted to the First Plaintiff"? Was r 2.55 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) a prescribed method for the giving of a NOICC under s 119(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)?

High Court (single Justice). Does the common law, once determined, operate both prospectively and retrospectively? In other words, if an administrative decision-maker decides a case based on the law as then understood, but that understanding then changes, does the new understanding apply ab initio?

Federal Court. The Minister found that cancellation under s 501BA(2) was in the national interest, because of the risk to the community if the Applicant remained in Australia, and the community's expectation that the government would not allow persons convicted of the offences involved to remain in Australia. Was that finding irrational, as the Applicant was NZYQ affected and would thus remain in Australia anyway?

Federal Court. The Minister found that cancellation under s 501BA(2) was in the national interest, for instance because of the risk to the community if the Applicant remained in Australia, and the community's expectation that the government would not allow persons who committed serious offences to remain in Australia. Was that finding legally unreasonable, as the Applicant was NZYQ affected and would thus remain in Australia anyway?

Federal Court. Did the requirement in Direction 110 to give “individual consideration” to the best interests of each child require that each of the matters identified in para 8.4(4) be considered in respect of each child?

Federal Court (Full Court). Does the subject matter of s 501 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) deals completely, and thus exclusively, with the subject matter of PIC 4003(b) of Schedule 4 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), with the result that PIC 4003(b) detracts from or impairs the operation of s 501?