Case Law Updates

Federal Court. In Katoa, the High Court decided that the Federal Court was not limited, in assessing the merits of a judicial review application, to a reasonably impressionistic level of such merits, when considering whether to grant a time extension within which to bring that application. Is the correct approach to consider the proposed ground of appeal at a reasonably impressionistic level?

Federal Court: If an administrative decision-maker takes into account facts existing at the time of decision and those facts change after a decision is made, can it be said that the decision was legally unreasonable?

Federal Court. Does the phrase 'family violence' in Direction 99 have different meanings depending on the context in which it appears? Was the applicant's conduct relevant to paras 8.1.1(1)(a) and 8.5 of Direction 99 only capable of weighing against him?

High Court. Is the Minister required under ss 54(1), (2)(c), 55(1) or 56(1) to consider relevant information given or gotten at an interview? Is "compliance by the Secretary of the Department with the consequent procedural duty to give to the Authority specified categories of "review material" [under 473CB] affected by errors in the translation of words spoken during the protection interview"? Can IAA make a jurisdictional error if it relies on misinterpretation and does not invite applicant to an interview or does not exercise its powers to get and consider new information which might address the misinterpretation?

Federal Court (Full Court): in a separate  (but not in dissent) judgement, Mortimer J held that the High Court's materiality test in Hossain did not apply to procedural fairness and legal reasonableness

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?

Federal Court (Full Court). In deciding whether it was in the national interest to grant a visa, was the Minister obliged to take into account the legal consequences of his decision, "particularly when those consequences have implications not only for an applicant but also for the nation"? Is there a "necessary inconsistency between being satisfied that the appellant is not a danger to Australia’s security for the purpose of s 36(1C) and not being satisfied that it is in the national interest to grant him a SHEV for the purpose of Sch 2 cl 790.277"?

Federal Court. Can it be said that, "once the Minister or a delegate is satisfied that all of the criteria for the grant of a visa are met, she or he is under an immediate duty to grant the visa" and that "once the duty to grant the visa has arisen, any subsequent exercise of the power to refuse the visa under s 501 is invalid"? Is PIC 4001 invalid? Is a decision under s 501 ultimately made under s 65?

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"?

Federal Court. Appellant spent most of his years in Australia without working, due to injury. Did cl 14.1(2)(a)(ii) of Direction 65 require AAT to "consider either the appellant’s will to be productive"? Accepting that cl 14(1) requires AAT "to take into account matters of relevance to whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a visa, apart from those specified in cl 14(1)", can it be said that "the reasons for a lack of contribution to the Australian community are such a relevant consideration"? Could AAT give lesser weight to the relationship between Appellant and his daughter "because at the time of the Tribunal’s decision she was soon to turn 18"?