Case Law Updates

High Court (single Justice). Do the words 'benefits the Australian economy' in cl 132.227(2)(b) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) imply a significant benefit?

Federal Court (Full Court). Was it legally unreasonable, irrational or illogical for the Minister to conclude that the risk that the appellant posed to the community and community expectations weighed in favour of cancellation of his visa when the appellant would remain in the community anyway on a BVR because of the effect of NZYQ?

Federal Court. The judicial review applicant rejected an offer of compromise by the Respondent in relation to costs which was as good as the result of the case. Did that rejection justify him paying costs incurred by the Respondent after the expiry of the offer?

Federal Court (Full Court). Instead of saying that errors in the form of legal unreasonableness in the making of a finding “on the way” to the final conclusion are material by definition, can it be said that they are material if they are critical findings, in the sense that there is a built-in requirement of materiality?

High Court (single Justice). Where an application for merits review is ongoing and yet to be concluded, is valid on its face and made within the prescribed time limit, is it an abuse of process to file a judicial review application with the High Court to review the same decision, in the absence of exceptional circumstances?

High Court. Was para 8.5(2) of Direction 110 referring to the cancelled visa, instead of a BVR? If a judicial review applicant inadvertently provided the Department with legal advice he had received, and the advice constituted relevant material adverse to him, can this attract an obligation of procedural fairness requiring disclosure to him of his error and an opportunity for him to claim legal professional privilege over the legal advice?

High Court. Was the Tribunal required to apply a Direction in force at the time when the decision under review was made or when the application for merits review was made, instead of the Direction in force at the time when the Tribunal made its decision? In other words, did the Appellant have an accrued right to have Tribunal determine his review in accordance with a Direction in force before the date of the Tribunal's decision?

Federal Court. For the purpose of the term "violent crimes" in Direction 110, is there "no inherent or invariable mental state required on the part of a perpetrator before conduct will be regarded as violent", meaning that the term "refers to the application (or threatened application) of physical force contrary to law"?

Federal Court. In the context of s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), is it possible to consider a non-citizen's criminal history without taking all of it, including a successful appeal on sentence, into account?

Federal Court. Can it be said that the Tribunal's "inclusion of the erroneous findings is in effect neutralised by the earlier correct findings and so the threshold of materiality is not met"?