Case Law Updates

Federal Court. Court ordered that Minister cease to detain the applicant at the Melbourne Immigration Transit Accommodation centre (MITA) due to the risk of covid-19 entering the MITA and then infecting the applicant. In practical terms, this means Minister will need to place applicant at a different detention centre.

Federal Court. Does the expression “child” in s 501(6)(e)(i) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) mean a person under the age of 16? If illogicality is established in a finding of fact made on the way to the ultimate decision, instead of illogicality in the ultimate decision itself, and the illogicality is not material by definition, is it only material if it was central (of being “critical” or “not immaterial”) to the ultimate decision?

Federal Court. In determining whether a self-represented person made a clearly articulated claim to an administrative decision-maker, should it be taken into account that a claim might not be drafted with the skill of practitioners?

Federal Court. Does the Federal Court have jurisdiction to review decisions made under s 198(6) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)?

Federal Court: the effect of s 497(2) of the Migration Act 1958 was that the person who sent a visa cancellation notification under s 501CA(3) needed not be delegated power under s 496(1) to cancel or notify of cancellation

OMARA: [All expenses incurred for the [subclass 187] nomination application are the responsibility of the sponsor and cannot be transferred to the visa applicant"... "I am satisfied that the Agent’s text message conversation with [the complainant] was related to the facilitation of payments intended to be provided to the employer by the visa applicant for a nominated position. It is an offence under sections 245AR and 245AS of the Act to ask for, receive, offer to provide, or provide a benefit in return for the occurrence of a sponsorship related event".

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. Should there be "unnecessary obstacles placed in the way of those who identify as First Nations People [such an adverse costs order] in proving what they contend is their rightful status under the Constitution"? Can it be said that the fact that a non-citizen's "legal representation was provided on a conditional basis with recoverable fees limited to any amount of costs paid by the respondent pursuant to an order of the Court tends neither for nor against the exercise of discretion [to award costs] in this case"?

Federal Court. In Nathanson, Kiefel CJ, Keane and Gleeson JJ held in the context of a denial of procedural fairness that the standard of reasonable conjecture, used to determine whether an error was material and thus jurisdictional, was "undemanding". Is reasonable conjecture applicable in the context of an assessment of the materiality of errors in the form of misinterpretation of s 473DD of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)? If so, is the standard of reasonable conjecture also undemanding in such a context?

Federal Court. In determining whether a time extension to file a judicial review application should be granted, can it be said that "the applicant made a decision to pursue revocation of the decision, and that such a course might be considered a waiver or election in relation to seeking judicial review, or at least should weigh strongly against the applicant"?