Case Law Updates

Federal Court: In deciding whether to affirm a decision of the Minister to cancel an approval for citizenship under s 25 of the Citizenship Act 2007, was the AAT required to take into account the legal consequences of its decision? If so, was the removal from Australia a legal consequence? Was the AAT required to take into account "non-protection" representations about what would happen if the AAT affirmed the citizenship approval cancellation?

Federal Court (Full Court). Does s 500(6H) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) prevent the Tribunal from "having regard to information from a witness unless a written statement outlining the evidence of that witness has been provided to the Minister at least two business days prior to the Tribunal’s hearing"? Does the Tribunal have a discretion to adjourn the review so that a notice in accordance with s 500(6H) can be given?

High Court. The Plaintiffs argued that the covid-19-related Quarantine (Closing the Border) Directions (WA) issued under the Emergency Management Act 2005 (WA) impermissibly infringed s 92 of the Constitution. The Court held that the exercise of the power given by ss 56 and 67 of the Act to make paras 4 and 5 of the Direction did not raise a constitutional question. Does this mean that the limitations imposed by s 92 of the Constitution are irrelevant for the purpose of judicial review of delegated legislation or administrative decisions made under the Act? One of the judgements arguably answered that question in a novel way.

Federal Court: Before appeal proceedings at FCA finalised, Callinan AC prepared a Report on the AAT, which included the following passage: "[the MRD Legal Services Section of the AAT has] prepared from time to time “templates” of determinations. I am told that at one stage, this section either volunteered to, or otherwise sought, and did in fact, “check” decisions by Members, on occasions requesting, if not almost insisting, upon changes beyond proofing changes". Appellants sought leave to issue a subpoena to MRD Legal Services Section to produce all documents exchanged with Member which could constitute legal advice. In support of leave application, Appellants' solicitor claimed Member's Linkedin profile revealed Member was legally qualified but "did not have a background in legal practice", thus supporting inference Member received legal advice. If Member received legal advice, did that vitiate AAT's decision?

Federal Court (FCA). On 16 Jun 2020, we summarised a court decision where the Minister had said it would not comply with FCA orders as such orders were made "in error", as the Minister was of the view that FCA had wrongly decided BAL19 and was appealing that decision. In that 16 Jun decision, FCA said "there is no self-evident reason why even a Minister of the Crown should not comply with orders made by this Court and, if found guilty of contempt, liable to the same penalties as any other litigant". On 23 Jun 2020, KDSP overturned BAL19. Could FCA express any "confidence in this particular Minister making any decision “forthwith” ... or within a reasonably short period of time"?

Federal Court. Does family violence include belittling, intimidating, frightening, or similar conduct directed to the person claiming to be the victim of domestic violence? Can it be said that, instead of being obliged to accept the evidence that was before her, the independent expert was required to make her own, independent assessment as to whether or not the appellant was a victim of relevant family violence?

Federal Court (Full Court). In an "appeal" under s 44(1) of the AAT Act, does a misinterpretation of the law amount to an error only if it is material to the decision in question? If not, is the issue of the materiality of an error nevertheless relevant to whether relief should be refused in the exercise of the Court’s discretion? In exercising the residual discretion under s 34(2) Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth), was the Tribunal limited to considering conduct or matters which had resulted in convictions within the ambit of ss 34(2)(b)(i) to (iv)?

High Court. Is para 8.2 of Direction 90 invalid, based on the proposition that "family violence can be relevant only to the protection of the Australian community (under para 8.1) or to the expectations of the Australian community (under para 8.4)"? Does the attribution of weight to family violence under paras 8.1, 8.2 and 8.4 involve double counting?

High Court. Is the threshold of materiality additionally required to be met for every breach of every condition of a conferral of statutory decision-making authority to result in a decision being vitiated with jurisdictional error? Does the applicant in an application for judicial review "bear the onus of proving on the balance of probabilities all the historical facts necessary to sustain the requisite reasonable conjecture" called for by the materiality test?

Federal Court: In considering non-refoulement obligations in the context of a decision under s 501CA(4) and Direction 65, did Minister "[misunderstand] that the applicant’s claims would 'necessarily' be considered in the event that the applicant was to make an application for a protection visa"? Minister said it was "unnecessary to determine whether non-refoulement obligations are owed in respect of [the applicant] for the purposes of the present decision as he is able to make a valid application for a Protection visa". Is it implicit that Minister understood that such obligations would be considered in the same way in the context of an application for a protection visa? Did Minister fail to give genuine consideration to matters raised by the Applicant outside of the concept of non-refoulement obligations?