Case Law Updates

Federal Court: although legal unreasonableness is not amenable to fixed formulae, this decision contains an interesting description: 'A conclusion, whether stated definitively or arising as a matter of generalisation ... , that is inherently inconsistent with another conclusion (in the sense that at least one of them must be wrong) is one that is attended by irrationality or illogicality of the extreme kind to which the authorities refer'.

High Court. In hearing an interlocutory appeal concerning the trial judge's refusal to exclude evidence under s 137 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), was the Court of Appeal required to apply the principles in House v The King applicable to the review of discretionary decisions or the "correctness" standard? 

Federal Court. Did Direction 90 preclude Tribunal from considering a claim relating to extent of impediments if removed, as the claim fell outside the considerations set out in para 9.2(1)? Was the Tribunal expected to discuss whether its finding that removal from Australia was likely to result in hardship of itself was or formed part of “another reason” to revoke the visa cancellation pursuant to s 501CA(4)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)? If so and the Tribunal did not discuss the effect of that finding, was the standard of reasonable conjecture for establishing materiality undemanding?

Federal Court: In SZMTA, HCA held that: error was jurisdictional only if it was material, that is if a different decision could have been made had the error not been made; materiality is a question of fact of which judicial review applicants bear the onus of proof. In Ibrahim, FCAFC held that it was incumbent on the judicial review applicant to demonstrate what would or could have occurred had the error not been made. In Nguyen, FCAFC, differently constituted, disagreed with Ibrahim. Can that division be resolved? Further, can errors which individually do not satisfy the materiality test do so if combined?

Federal Court (Full Court). If a decision-maker disbelieves a person on one matter, can it be said that that disbelief might be carried over to affect the decision-maker's disbelief in other matters? If so and if it is established that belief of a person's credibility on one matter was erroneously based, can it be said, in the context of assessing the materiality of an error, that that might convince the decision-maker of the need to revisit its conclusions on other matters?

Federal Court (Full Court). Do ss 197C and 198 "preclude detention for a period of time so that the executive can genuinely consider alternative possibilities for a person to remain in Australia"? Can a delegate or the Minister rationally and reasonably "decide to grant a visa to a person who a) has had a different visa cancelled and b) has applied for the cancellation to be revoked but has been unsuccessful"? Is there an inconsistency between the terms of para 14.1(6) and s 197C? Is the prospect of indefinite detention a mandatory consideration?

Federal Court. In order for 'information' to enliven s 359A(1), is it "necessary that it should contain in its terms a ‘rejection, denial or undermining’ of an applicant’s claims to be entitled to the grant of the visa" and that "the claims [are] to be understood as the criteria for the visa being sought"? Can AAT Members be compelled to give evidence about their decisions? Is it necessarily legally unreasonable for a decision-maker to conclude that an artist who applied for a distinguished talent visa applicant should not be required to audition for a role?

Federal Court. AAT was required to consider under s 501CA(4) whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the judicial review time extension Applicant's visa and to take into account the protection of the Australian community, as mandated by Direction 79. Para 14.1 of that direction required decision makers to consider the "impact of a decision not to revoke on members of the Australian community, including victims of the non-citizen's criminal behaviour". Did the AAT engage in impermissible double counting when it considered the effect of the Applicant's offending both in the context of the protection of the Australian community and in the context of the impact on the victims of the Applicant's offending?

High Court. Does the constitutionally permissible period of executive detention of an alien who has failed to obtain permission to remain in Australia come to an end when there is no real prospect of removal of the alien from Australia becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future? If so, who bears the onus of proving that there is no real prospect of removal becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future?

Federal Court (Full Court). In Katoa, the High Court decided that the Federal Court was not limited, in assessing the merits of a judicial review application, to a reasonably impressionistic level of such merits, when considering whether to grant a time extension within which to bring that application. Should Katoa be extended to the consideration of whether to grant leave for a new ground of judicial review to be agitated for the first time on appeal?