Case Law Updates

Federal Court. Can it be said that "the interest protected by public interest immunity, once a court has determined that such immunity attaches to documents or a class of documents, require that the contents of such documents cannot be disclosed to any person or deployed in evidence in curial proceedings", and that it is "implicit that such material cannot be disclosed to any judge who is called on to determine such cases"?

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: May ss 473DD(a) and (b)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) overlap? Further, IAA refused to consider new info, saying: "The mere fact that some of the applicant’s siblings have been granted protection on the basis the applicant claims is the same as his own claims, has no probative value when assessing the applicant’s claims for protection". Did IAA, in effect, say that "in no circumstances could evidence" relating to the siblings "have probative value when assessing the applicant’s claims for protection", thus amounting to jurisdictional error?

Federal Court. In what circumstances can courts admit evidence adduced on judicial review? If the Tribunal is exercising the merits review jurisdiction conferred on it by s 500(1)(ba) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in respect of a decision under s 501CA(4) made by a delegate of the Minister, does s 43 of the AAT Act invest for that purpose the Tribunal with all of the powers, discretions and statutory obligations of the delegate?

Federal Court. Was the Applicant "entitled to have his claims for protection in respect of Nauru determined and, if found to be well founded, not to be refouled to Nauru", in light of the omission in s 197C of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to a reference to s 198AD, despite the Minister's power to take him to Nauru pursuant to s 198AD and despite the fact that the Migration Act does not provide a statutory mechanism to determine such a claim?

Federal Court. Assuming that the power in s 501BA(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) is required to be exercised within a reasonable time, and that such requirement is not complied with, is the consequence that a writ of mandamus might issue to compel the Minister to make a decision, instead of the power being treated as spent through certiorari?

Federal Court (Full Court): 'it will not always be illogical or irrational to place “some weight” on anonymous information'

Federal Court: This decision is arguably relevant to migration matters in general. Applicant's Newstart allowance was cancelled by Centrelink. He applied to AAT for merits review, arguing why the allowance should not be cancelled under s 80 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth). Without notice to the Applicant, AAT affirmed cancellation decision based on s 95 of that Act. In Alphaone, FCA had held that the procedural fairness rule did not require decision-makers to reveal their "thought process". Was the reliance on s 95 instead of 80 a "thought process"?

High Court. Would s 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) be Constitutionally valid to the extent that it is reasonably capable of being seen as necessary for the purpose of protecting the integrity of the naturalisation process? If so, is it so capable? Is s 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Citizenship Act invalid in its operation in respect of the plaintiff because it is not supported by s 51(xix) of the Constitution (naturalisation) or because it reposes in the Minister the exclusively judicial function of punishing criminal guilt?

Federal Court. Does the principle according to which costs ordinarily follow the event "answer the question as to whether costs should be ordered when, as in the present case, the application was not determined"? If the Applicant would have been substantially successful, had he not been granted the visa, is this a circumstance that favours costs being awarded against the Respondent? In a real sense, was the judicial review application directed at the Applicant's liberty?