Case Law Updates

Federal Court. In Ibrahim, the FCAFC held that, although s 501BA(3) removed the obligation to provide natural justice, it did not prohibit it being provided. Unlike Ibrahim, the Minister here was aware he had the option of providing natural justice, but chose not to. Was that "choice" given to the Minister on the condition that it be exercised legally reasonably? Was the Minister required under s 501BA to consider the submissions made and evidence given by the Applicant to the Tribunal?

Federal Court (Full Court). The Full Court discussed in detail whether single judge decisions of the Federal Court (whether in the original or appellate jurisdiction) bind Full Court decisions (whether in the original or appellate jurisdiction) and vice-versa. It also discussed whether Ali, Ibrahim and BCR16 were correctly decided and the effect of Direction 75.

Federal Court. In determining whether an unarticulated claim nevertheless clearly arose from the materials before an administrative decision-maker, is it relevant that the non-citizen was professionally represented before that decision-maker throughout the process?

Federal Court. If a party argues on appeal that they were denied procedural fairness in proceedings in the court below, is the question of whether the appeal is futile to be determined "from the standpoint of whether it has been demonstrated in the appeal that had the appellants been accorded procedural fairness it was inevitable that the primary judge would have made an order dismissing the appellants’ application for judicial review"?

Federal Court (Full Court). Can it be said that, in an appeal by way of re-hearing, "in deciding the proper inferences to be drawn from facts undisputed or otherwise found, the appeal court will give respect and weight to the conclusion of the trial judge, but, once having reached its own conclusion, will not shrink from giving effect to it"? Is error "limited to showing why or how the trial judge erred in the process or approach that was taken"?

Federal Court: Appellant made an unsuccessful judicial review application to FCCA, which delivered oral reasons for judgement, but those reasons were not interpreted to Appellant. Appellant appealed to FCA just before the statutory deadline, but FCCA's reasons were only published more than a month after the appeal was filed. Minister argued to the FCA that "there was no denial of procedural fairness ... because the appellant in fact filed a notice of appeal on time, and did not seek to amend it once he did receive a copy of the [FCCA's] reasons". The content of the contemporaneous reasons were not known to the FCA nor the Minister or the Appellant. Did FCCA deny Appellant procedural fairness? If so, what remedy should the Appellant be given?

Tribunal: One of the components of the Australian study requirement (ASR) is that the applicant must have completed one or more courses that "were completed as a result of a total of at least 2 academic years study". It is commonly said that the duration of the course/s must be of 92 weeks. Is that correct? In this decision, the Tribunal accepted that 2 concurrent courses of 78 weeks each were sufficient to satisfy the ASR. We explain why.

Federal Court. Can it be said that the non-revocation notice "substantially complies with the requirement in s 501G(f)(ii) of the Migration Act despite the omission in this case of an explanation of the effect of s 36(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act"?

Federal Court. Can it be said that the risk of harm to the applicant from violence and crime upon removal to South Sudan is not reduced by reason that the applicant may make a protection visa application, as such an application may be refused? In other words, should Plaintiff M1 be distinguished?

High Court. Do the verbs "give" and "invite" in s 501CA(3) require that regard be had to the circumstances of the recipient? Must the information and invitation be given by the Minister, or a delegate, personally? Did the timeframe of 28 days within which to make a revocation request under s 501CA(4) run from the date the invitation was sent via email to the immigration detention centre, instead of when it was handed to the respondent a day later? By incorrectly stating the 28 days by reference to the date of the email, was the invitation invalid? Can an analogy be drawn with DFQ17 ?