Case Law Updates

Federal Court. In order for an error (or errors) in the form of legal unreasonableness in a decision-making process to be labelled "jurisdictional", is it necessary for the materiality of the error to be established as a separate, additional element? Does Makasa apply to s 501(1)? In exercising the power under s 501A(2) to override a decision of the Tribunal, can the Minister rely on matters that were known to him at the time of the Tribunal hearing but not put by him (or on his behalf) to the Tribunal?

Federal Circuit Court. Did the Tribunal have a discretion to hold a hearing by telephone? If so, must that discretion be exercised reasonably? If so, what are the factors relevant to determining whether the exercise was reasonable?

Federal Court. Para 8.3(4)(a)(i) of Direction 90 provided that "considerable weight should be given to the fact that a non-citizen has been ordinarily resident in Australia during and since their formative years". Does that compel the Tribunal to give "considerable weight"?

Federal Court: as reported by Migration Law Updates in Dec 2018, the Federal Circuit Court had held that the reference to "2 years" under reg 1.15AA of the Migration Regulations 1994 was linked to the "medical condition", not the "assistance" to be provided by the carer. That decision was appealed.

Federal Court (Full Court). Does s 198AD(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) apply to a person who has been the subject of a favourable decision under s 46A(2)? Can a court "completely remove the capacity of those legally responsible for the detention of an individual to determine where that individual should be held"?

Federal Court. Is it "appropriate to conclude from the text of s 501G(1), considered in context, that the purpose of the requirement expressed in s 501G(1) for a notice to be given is to be protective of the interests of the person affected by the relevant decision beyond requiring notification"? Do s 500(6A)-(6L) require the Minister to explain the consequences of those provisions?

Federal Court. Did the primary judge err in: refusing to provide written reasons following delivery of his ex tempore reasons; communicating that he had no power to publish written reasons? If so to the latter question, does that error invalidate the primary judge’s exercise of judicial power? Does the primary judge’s indication that he would not settle a form of written reasons mean that he failed to give reasons? Can an incomplete transcript of oral reasons be relied upon as reasons of the Court?

Federal Court. Is a "fast track applicant" a "fast track review applicant" unless and until the Minister forms the opinion that he/she is an "excluded fast track review applicant", with the consequence that, until and if that opinion is formed, a refusal to grant him/her a protection visa should be referred to the IAA even if the applicant, objectively, "has made a claim for protection in a country other than Australia that was refused by" that country or the UNHCR Office?

High Court. Can it be said that "each aspect of non-compliance with s 499(2A) [of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)] was a particular of the one error – a breach by a statutory decision-maker of a condition governing the making of a decision, namely statutory non‑compliance with s 499(2A) of the Migration Act in failing to comply with Direction 90"?

Federal Court. The Appellant appealed to the FCA from an FCCA decision and raised a new ground of judicial review for the first time on appeal. Should the FCA refuse leave to run the new ground on the basis that, if leave were granted, the Minister would suffer as he would have no practical right of appeal to the HCA?