Case Law Updates

Federal Court. Does Paragraph 9.1.2(1) of Direction 110 recognise that a person may raise international non-refoulement obligations distinct from the statutory “protection obligations” assessed in the protection visa process?

Federal Court. Did cl 8.1.1(1)(d) of Direction 110 require the identification of a person or persons affected by the offending or the conduct?

Federal Court (Full Court). Did the Tribunal make jurisdictional error by not informing the non-citizen that it was proposing to make adverse and dispositive findings on matters that had been accepted in her favour before the delegate, even though she had declined an invitation by the Tribunal to attend a hearing?

Federal Court (Full Court). The appellant Minister sought to set-off a costs order made in the respondent non-citizen's favour out of a costs order made in the Minister's favour in previous court proceedings. Did the primary judge's exercise of discretion, refusing to allow the offset costs because this would discourage lawyers from acting on a conditional basis, miscarry?

Federal Court (Full Court). Does s 476(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) confer on the Federal Circuit and Family Court (FCFCOA) jurisdiction to hear and determine all matters arising out of common facts, such as a claim for damages for false imprisonment, in which a writ of mandamus or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth in relation to a migration decision?

Federal Court. Is the conduct listed in cl 8.5(2) of Direction 110 exhaustive for the purposes of cl 8.5?

Federal Court. Is the risk posed by the non-citizen in question to the Australian community a mandatory relevant consideration for the Minister when exercising the discretion under s 501A(3)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)?

Federal Court. Is the statutory bar imposed by s 501E of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) an inevitable, immediate and direct consequence of the Minister exercising the power conferred by s 501BA, with the result that such a consequence has to be considered when exercising that power?

Federal Court (Full Court). Was it open to the non-citizen to "impugn the substantive determination [under s 430] on the ground that the Tribunal’s procedural decision [under s 426A(1A)(a)] affected the legality of the substantive determination by rendering the determination the product of a legally unreasonable process"?

Federal Court. Is a decision-maker "likely to commit jurisdictional error if it fails to give weight to apparently supporting material from an independent source, without explaining why that material has not been preferred"?