Case Law Updates

Federal Court (Full Court). Can the Tribunal act on its personal or specialised knowledge and on matters which are commonly known? Does the discharge of the onus placed on the judicial review applicant to prove that a finding by the Tribunal, which required evidence but was one in respect of which there was not a skerrick of evidence, was material to the outcome require proof that the finding was erroneous?

Federal Court (Full Court). In re-exercising the duty under s 473CB(1)(c) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), must the Secretary identify only documents that were within their possession or control at the time that the decision was referred to the IAA by the Minister, or must the Secretary also have regard to the documents in their possession at the time that they re-exercise that duty?

Federal Court. In Mataia, FCA had decided that the principle in cl 6.3(5) of Direction No 79 is a not a mandatory relevant consideration. Does Mataia apply to cl 6.3(7)?

High Court. Is there common law presumptions in Australia that "the Crown is not bound by statute unless a contrary intention can be discerned from all the relevant circumstances" and that a statute does not impose criminal liability on the Crown?

Federal Court. If the Tribunal suggests that it will consider only a subset of the issues considered by the delegate but in reality also considers other issues considered by the delegate, is it under an obligation under s 360(1) to "invite the applicant to give evidence and present arguments relating to [those other] issues"?

A guidance decision indicates how the AAT (and possibly the Department) will interpret the transitional provisions for nominations made before 18 March 2018 where no corresponding subclass 457 visa application was made.

Federal Court. Can it be said that, "in relation to the decisional process required by s 65(1), the Minister will only have misconstrued his power under s 501(1) if the facts found by the Minister inconsistent with those found by the Tribunal are critical to the Minister’s decision to refuse the visa"? Was it illogical "for the Minister to find that the applicant was a risk to the Australian community in light of the Tribunal’s previous finding that the applicant was not a danger to the Australian community in accordance with s 36(1C) of the Act"?

Federal Court. "Where there has been inordinate delay and that consideration weighs so heavily against an extension of time being granted" in an application for judicial review, does it necessarily follow that the applicant must demonstrate "something exceptional or out of the ordinary in the circumstances of the case to provide a countervailing justification for extending time"? If so, would it be difficult to demonstrate that circumstances are exceptional if the case sought to be advanced were not "exceptional"?

Federal Court. May the extent of what a habeas corpus applicant is required to demonstrate to secure his/her release have regard to the extent to which knowledge of relevant matters is in the hands of the detainer? Can an action for false imprisonment be brought by a person who has no basis at all for a view that the detention was not lawfully justified? In a claim for false imprisonment, must the applicant negative a defence which the respondent may have? In other words, is the lack of a defence an element of the tort?

High Court. Should statutory provisions be interpreted, so far as possible, to be consistent with international law, particularly where a provision seeks to give effect to matters of international law? Is the primary object of statutory construction to "construe the relevant provision so that it is consistent with the language and purpose of all the provisions of the statute"?