Case Law Updates

Federal Court (Full Court). Is the jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit Court (FCC) conferred by s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) limited to remedies by way of judicial review? Was the power of the FCC circumscribed in the context of the judicial review of migration decisions "because of the omission of declaratory relief from the specific public law remedies mentioned in s 75(v) of the Constitution"? If the relief sought is "hopeless, inutile and hypothetical", does it mean that the court in which it is sought lacks jurisdiction to grant the relief?

Federal Court: a time of decision criterion for visa subclass 836 is that a medical certificate must state that the person receiving care has and will continue to have a need for direct assistance for at least 2 years. Does it mean that the certificate must be issued shortly before the time of decision? Could the certificate issued in 2010 "reasonably say anything about the degree of impairment of the sponsor 8 years later"? Does a medical certificate expire?

Federal Court (Full Court). Cl 14.4(1) of Direction 79 required decision-makers to consider, under s 501CA(4), the "impact of a decision not to revoke" the mandatory cancellation of a visa on members of the Australian community, including victims and relatives of victims of the former visa holder. Should cl 14.4(1) be interpreted as referring to the impact of a decision to revoke, as opposed to the impact of a decision not to revoke?

Federal Court (Full Court). Instead of saying that errors in the form of legal unreasonableness in the making of a finding “on the way” to the final conclusion are material by definition, can it be said that they are material if they are critical findings, in the sense that there is a built-in requirement of materiality?

High Court. Can a couple live "separately and apart" even when they reside in the same home? Is it possible for a couple who maintain "separate residences" to not be living separately and apart, so long as they live as a "single household"?

Federal Court (Full Court). Can it be said that, although it was open to the Minister to find that the respondent had taken no substantial steps towards rehabilitation up to the time of the Tribunal hearing, there was no rational basis for him to express views about the respondent’s circumstances at the time of his decision, 13 months after the Tribunal's decision? Is irrationality material by definition?

Federal Court (Full Court). Can the Parliament "abolish natural justice to the extent that it no longer applies to an officer of the Commonwealth in the context of constitutional writs under s 75(v) of the Constitution"? Can it be said that s 501BA(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) "impermissibly confines or restricts the judicial power conferred on the High Court under s 75(v) of the Constitution and is therefore invalid"?

Federal Court. Rule in Browne v Dunn: "if you intend to impeach a witness you are bound, whilst he is in the [witness] box, to give him an opportunity of making any explanation which is open to him". Does that rule apply to Tribunal decisions? Further, according to the hearsay rule, out-of-court representations made by a person are not admissible to prove the existence of a fact that it can reasonably be supposed that the person intended to assert by the representations, with exceptions. Does the hearsay rule apply to Tribunal decisions? We summarise the answer to these and several other questions.

Federal Court: in the context of merits review of a non-revocation decision under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), can it be said that any departure by the original decision-maker from his or her notification obligations under s 501G(2)  would result in invalidity of a merits review application, "without consideration of the extent and consequences of the departure"?

Federal Court. Can it be said that "the absence of an express finding in a Tribunal’s reasons on matters referred to in a ministerial direction does not necessitate the conclusion that no finding was made", as "a decision-maker may not refer to a particular matter because it has been found to be immaterial, or of no real significance" and as "there was no obligation on the part of the Tribunal to refer in its reasons to immaterial matters about which no substantive submissions were made, and which were not the subject of relevant evidence"?