Unincorporated law firm entitled to costs for employed solicitor’s work?
High Court. Does an order for costs in favour of an unincorporated law firm entitle the firm to obtain recompense for legal work performed by an employed solicitor of the firm?
Court proceedings to be adjourned pending Royal Assent of Bill addressing Pearson?
Federal Court (Full Court). Can a formal submission only be made that a decision of another Full Court is plainly wrong and should not be followed? Does it follow from the fact that a delegate had no power to cancel a visa under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) that the discretion to revoke the original decision under s 501CA(4) was never enlivened? Has the Appellant's visa, which was invalidly cancelled as per the reasoning in Pearson, remained in full force and effect, whatever may be the effect of the Bill if ultimately enacted into law with retrospective effect?
Can part of AAT application fee be paid after the deadline?
Federal Court (Full Court). Did representative authorise payment of AAT application fee whatever the fee would be? Can most of the fee be paid by the statutory deadline and the difference afterwards? Does the fee accompany the application if it is paid after the application is lodged, so long as paid before the deadline?
Is “good reason” needed to depart from costs scale?
Federal Court. For migration proceedings in the Federal Circuit and Family Court, is there "bias or weighting to be accorded in favour of scale costs such that there must be a “good reason”, “exceptional circumstances” or a case of “unusual complexity” before one of the other options is selected"?
Section 360: obligation to invite on a ‘once and for all’ basis?
Federal Court. Can it be said that the obligation under s 360 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to invite an applicant to a hearing does not operate on a “once and for all” basis, in that, if a new issue arises after a Tribunal hearing, a further hearing must be convened? Are issues which emerge during a hearing also subject to the obligation imposed by s 360?
OMARA: RMA ‘turned a blind eye to the activities of’ a non-RMA
According to the OMARA, the suspended RMA turned 'a blind eye to the activities of [a non-RMA], choosing to be ignorant of his conduct'. It seems that assistance by the non-RMA with skills assessment applications was considered by the OMARA to be 'immigration assistance', which only RMAs can provide.
New chapter in BAL19 saga
Federal Court. In BAL19, FCA decided that s 501 and PIC 4001 do not apply to protection visa applications. In BFW20, FCA held that BAL19 was not plainly wrong and that DHA could not delay making a decision on protection visa applications on the basis that it disagrees with BAL19 and is appealing that decision. Minister then appealed FCA's decision in BFW20 and applied for a stay of FCA's orders as part of that appeal. Minister argued that, unless a stay was given, he would have to grant a visa on the basis that s 501 did not apply and that, as visa grant is not something that can be undone, the subject matter of the stay application would be destroyed. Should FCA's orders be stayed?
Is non-referral for Ministerial Intervention judicially reviewable?
Federal Court. Applicant requested that Minister consider exercising power under s 417 of Migration Act. Case officer made a 3 page initial assessment, concluding: "The claims and circumstances presented in this request are not unique or exceptional when assessed against the Minister’s Guidelines. The case is assessed as not meeting the Guidelines for referral to the Minister". Acting Assistant Director's decision read: "I agree with the assessment that circumstances of this case do not meet the Minister’s Guidelines for referral and that, in accordance with the Guidelines, the Department should finalise this request without referral..." Is s 417 conditioned by the requirement of legal reasonableness? If so, was initial assessment or agreement with it legally unreasonable?
Must discretion in s 427(1)(a) be exercised reasonably?
Federal Court. If the Tribunal's decision not to call a witness put forward by the Appellant was affected by jurisdictional error in that it lacked an evident and intelligible justification, could that error also be identified as a failure to take into account a relevant consideration (that the witness' oral evidence may assist the Tribunal to determine the Appellant's claim to be a refugee)?
Thornton applicable to NSW offences?
High Court. In Thornton, the High Court held that ss 85ZR(2) and 85ZS(1)(d)(ii) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) precluded consideration of offences committed in Queensland by the respondent to that case when he was a child in the determination of whether to revoke the cancellation of his visa under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Does Thornton apply to offences committed by children in NSW?