Case Law Updates

Federal Court. In circumstances where the Tribunal accepted that the applicant was suffering from a medical or psychological condition in relation to substance abuse and addiction that required clinical treatment and supervision, did it fail to complete the exercise of its jurisdiction, as para 9.2(1)(a) of Direction 99 require it to consider the applicant’s health issues relating to alcohol abuse and drug addiction, which it failed to do?

High Court. Plaintiff missed AAT deadline and thus applied to HCA for judicial review (JR). Could HCA remit matter to FCA or FCCA? Was delay of 6 months in JR application substantial? What is required for the Minister to discharge his/her obligations under s 57(2)? Although s 55(2) provided that Minister was not "required to delay making a decision because the applicant might give, or has told the Minister that the applicant intends to give, further information", can it be legally unreasonably for Minister to fail to delay?

Federal Court (Full Court): it is settled law that, in order for a fraudulent visa application lodged by an RMA to be invalid, the applicant must be neither complicit in, nor 'indifferent' to, the fraud (Gill and Singh). The Full Court elaborated on those previous decisions, holding that 'indifference' in public law means 'reckless indifference' at common law

Federal Court. Does s 36(1C)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) call for "comparative exercise to assess whether the grant of a protection visa would result in an increase in the danger to the community posed by the applicant over the danger to the community posed by the applicant if a protection visa were not granted"?

Federal Court. Does the fact that the grant of an injunction would restrain the enforcement of the law by preventing officers of the Commonwealth from performing a statutory duty, and thereby frustrate the legislative scheme of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), provide a strong reason not to grant an interlocutory injunction in the present case?

Federal Court. Can it be said that the "Minister has no interests in the outcome of this litigation beyond ensuring that the law of the Parliament is applied correctly to the personal circumstances of a litigant who has been deprived of his liberty by the State"?

Federal Court (Full Court): could it be said that it "may be that a complementary protection claim could be based upon prevailing circumstances in a country of a kind that would expose a particular returnee to a risk of harm, even though there is no identified reason why the applicant for a protection visa might be targeted"?

Federal Court (Federal Court). Once an important underpinning of the decision in relation to several elements is fundamentally altered, is it possible to have confidence in what the outcome would have been?

Federal Court. Section 24(1A) of the FCA Act provided that an appeal shall not be brought from an interlocutory judgement unless the FCA gives leave. Does Jackson apply equally to the notice of appeal filed in this case? If so, did the exception under s 24(1C) apply? Did the decision under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) interfere with the sentence and parole orders of the District Court of NSW in violation of the separations of powers?

Federal Court. Does FCA have jurisdiction to review a delegate's decision to refuse under s 501CA(4) to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a visa made under s 501(3A)? Can the self-represented Applicant's notice of appeal from the Minister's decision be treated, in substance, as: a notice of appeal from the Tribunal's decision; including an application for a time extension under s 477A(2)(a)? How should the FCA approach poorly-cast grounds of judicial review? Is the Tribunal required to conduct hearings in person?