Case Law Updates

Federal Court. Will the Court only grant a stay of Tribunal proceedings when its supervisory jurisdiction is involved, and where there are shown to be “exceptional circumstances”?

Federal Court. Despite the substantial overlap in the considerations that are taken into account in exercising the discretion to refuse to grant a visa under s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and those taken into account in an exercise of the power conferred by s 501CA(4) to revoke a mandatory cancellation decision, and that fact that both powers are to be exercised by reference to Direction 110, are those powers distinct and different in material respects?

Federal Court. Does the fact that the grant of an injunction would restrain the enforcement of the law by preventing officers of the Commonwealth from performing a statutory duty, and thereby frustrate the legislative scheme of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), provide a strong reason not to grant an interlocutory injunction in the present case?

Federal Court. Does use of the word “means” in cl 4(1) of Direction 110 limit the definition of “family violence” to the two types of conduct as described, namely conduct that "coerces or controls a member of the person’s family" or "causes the family member to be fearful"?

Federal Court (Full Court). Is the question of whether the appellant was denied procedural fairness because he was not reminded of the privilege against self-incrimination the same as the question of whether what occurred was “material”?

High Court. Does s 501(6)(d)(iv) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) offend the freedom of political communication implied in the Constitution?

High Court. Did the delegate fail to comply with ss 56 and 62 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), and thus made a jurisdictional error, by saying that "any documents that are not translated by accredited translators in Australia, or by official offshore translators, will not be included as part of [the assessment of whether to grant a visa]"?

High Court. Can it be said that the type of invalidity effected by s 109 of the Constitution does not render the State law void or beyond State legislative power, but instead renders the State law "inoperative"? If so, does it follow that, "on and from the Commonwealth law ceasing to have effect, the State law resumes its full force and effect"?

Federal Court. Was it legally unreasonable for the Assistant Minister to adopt the assessment of a psychologist "on the risk of the applicant reoffending, undertaken nine months previously, in the absence of evidence that the applicant had addressed certain matters to reduce that risk, to make a current assessment on risk"?

Federal Court (Full Court). Did the Tribunal's finding involve a misinterpretation of the law, in that it found the appellant to have been 'convicted', in the absence of a court conviction? Was it sufficient for the purpose of para 8.4(4)(f) of Direction 99 for the AAT to consider the view expressed by a child, without considering the document where that view was expressed?