Case Law Updates

Federal Court (Full Court). Appellant applied to FCCA for judicial review (JR) and extension of time within which to apply for JR. In dismissing time extension application, FCCA engaged in more than an impressionistic evaluation of merits of proposed grounds of review. Did FCCA make jurisdictional error by doing so? Can FCCA hear applications under ss 476 and s 477(2) together? Was the FCCA's error not material in that, had it not misconceived s 477(2), it would have decided the JR application against Appellant anyway?

Federal Court. Does the fact that a particular conclusion on a particular issue is based on specialised knowledge "have the result that the rules of procedural fairness do not require that the issue be brought to the attention of an applicant if the issue is a critical or important one which is not obvious on the known material"?

Federal Court. Delegate's decision to refuse to grant Appellant a protection visa contained footnote references to documents that were not discussed in delegate's decision. Those documents were adverse to Appellant's claims. IAA, on review, discussed and relied on those documents. Appellant argued to the Federal Court that: "primary rule" under s 473DC was that the IAA conducts a review on the papers by reference to the material "before the Minister"; those documents were not before the Minister, as they were not discussed by delegate, but merely footnoted; thus, those documents were "new information" as defined under s 473BB, which meant that IAA was limited as to the circumstances in which it could consider them.

Federal Court. Is a failure to disclose other judicial proceedings upon commencement of a proceeding in relation to a tribunal decision fatal to the latter proceeding?

Federal Court. Is the production of a certified extract from the Registrar of Births Deaths and Marriages for the State of Victoria evidence of the fact of the birth and of each of the facts stated therein? In determining parentage, did it matter that the child support payments that were required to be made by the claimed father were, in the delegate's view, "low"? Was a Medicare card listing both the claimed father and the Applicant evidence of parentage?

Federal Court. In DFQ17 and BMY18, Full Court of FCA held that, in order for a notification of visa refusal under s 66(2)(d) to be valid, it had to "clearly state" the deadline for applying for merits review. As a result, the "late" AAT applications in those cases were actually not late. In Ali, a single judge of the FCA distinguished DFQ17, holding that the notification in that case clearly stated the deadline for an AAT application. As the circumstances in Ali (i.e. email notification with deadline of 21 calendar days) reflect the vast majority of notifications sent by the Department, Ali had the practical effect of indicating that the error found in DFQ17 only applied to exceptional cases. Now, another single judge of the FCA held, although in obiter (*), that Ali does not sit comfortably with DFQ17 & BMY18 and that the latter decisions should be followed.

Federal Court (Full  Court). FCCA remitted matter to AAT "for determination according to law". AAT disagreed with FCCA reasons and instead followed an earlier FCA decision. Was AAT bound to follow FCCA conclusion? Should a judge follow the judgment of another judge of the same court unless persuaded it is clearly wrong? If FCCA (previous FCCA) finds alternative grounds against Minister, matter is remitted to AAT, Minister does not appeal, AAT affirms original decision and non-citizen applies to FCCA (next FCCA) for judicial review: is it an abuse of process for Minister to argue before next FCCA that previous FCCA was wrong; does previous FCCA decision create an issue estoppel? Are the consequences of a past act or omission capable of engaging the complementary protection criterion in s 36(2)(aa)?

Federal Court. May a jurisdictional error in the form of a breach of procedural fairness "be established where a Tribunal, or a cross-examiner, asks a question in circumstances which give rise to a right to refuse to answer on the basis of the privilege against self-incrimination and a sufficient explanation of the existence of the right to refuse to answer is not given"?

Federal Court. Is the so-called implied undertaking (also known as “Harman undertaking”) to the effect that "a party who seeks discovery of documents obtains it on condition that the party will make use of those documents only for the purpose of that action, and for no other purpose"? If so, does the answer suggest that the undertaking only applies to documents obtained under compulsion, as opposed to documents voluntarily provided?

Although the AAT will defer dealing with late applications in the MRD pending an appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court, that does not necessarily mean that late applicants should defer lodging their review applications any further