Case Law Updates

Federal Court (Full Court). Can it be said that, although a court cannot scrutinise an administrative decision with "an eye keenly attuned to the perception of error", it is equally well-established that the eyes of a reader “should not be so blinkered as to avoid discerning an absence of reasons or reasons devoid of any consideration of a submission central to a party’s case"?

Federal Court: This decision illustrates why it might not be in a client's best interest to provide the Tribunal with a copy of the Department's decision record. Further, was it legally reasonable for the Tribunal to refuse to make a phone call to a witness whom the Appellant claimed to work at the Iranian Embassy on the basis that it was impossible for it to determine the identity of the witness or that the phone call "could lead to the Iranian government being informed of the [Appellant's] asylum claims"?

Federal Court: the Appellant made a Tribunal application but mistakenly answered in the application form that he held a refugee visa, with the result that the AAT's online system did not ask for payment of the application fee. That fee was only paid after the timeframe for making a valid application. The AAT recognised the mistake was understandable given how its online system was designed, but nevertheless found it had no jurisdiction. Was the review application 'accompanied by the prescribed fee'?

Federal Court (Full Court). By reason of s 82(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), the Appellant's ETA ceased to be in effect upon the grant of a subclass 600 visa. When the latter visa ceased to be in effect, was the ETA reactivated by operation of law?

Federal Court (Full Court). Is the power conferred by s 501 to refuse to grant a visa "exercised in the performance of the duty imposed by s 65(1)(b) to refuse to grant the visa for the reason that the grant of the visa is prevented by s 501"? In BAL19, FCA decided that s 501 did not apply to protection visa applications. Was BAL19 wrongly decided? Must the power under s 501A(2) be exercised within a reasonable period of time? If so, was a period of 18 months unreasonable?

Tribunal: One of the components of the Australian study requirement (ASR) is that the applicant must have completed one or more courses that "were completed as a result of a total of at least 2 academic years study". It is commonly said that the duration of the course/s must be of 92 weeks. Is that correct? In this decision, the Tribunal accepted that 2 concurrent courses of 78 weeks each were sufficient to satisfy the ASR. We explain why.

Federal Court. In what circumstances can courts admit evidence adduced on judicial review? If the Tribunal is exercising the merits review jurisdiction conferred on it by s 500(1)(ba) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in respect of a decision under s 501CA(4) made by a delegate of the Minister, does s 43 of the AAT Act invest for that purpose the Tribunal with all of the powers, discretions and statutory obligations of the delegate?

Federal Court. DHA cancelled visa under s 109. AAT relied on 37 documents given by a 3rd-party as evidence that Appellants were not stateless. Appellants unsuccessfully tried to obtain a copy of those documents through FOI, to the AAT's knowledge, and submitted to AAT they were not authentic and were given to exact revenge. Was AAT required under s 424A to provide Appellants with those documents or copies of them? Did AAT fail to provide a meaningful hearing under s 425?

Federal Court. If the Minister personally makes a decision under s 501CA(4): is he required "to consider and understand the representations received" for himself, even if he is given an accurate summary of such representations; must he give "reasons as to why the expectations of the Australian community should count against revocation"? Must s 501CA(4) decisions  be made within a reasonable period of time? May the ongoing validity of a decision under s 501(3A) depend upon due and prompt performance of the power under s 501CA(4)?

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"?