Case Law Updates

Federal Court. Can it be said that, “in order to make a decision in accordance with law on the remittal of a matter it is necessary, in the sense required by the doctrine of necessity as an exception to the bias rule, that the differently constituted IAA be provided by the Secretary (under s 473CB(1)(c) of the Migration Act) with a copy of the judgment or judgments identifying the legal error which vitiated the first decision of the IAA”?

Federal Court: under the Medevac provisions, 2 doctors must assess ("either remotely or in person") a transitory person before they can be brought to Australia for medical treatment. The non-citizen argued that the review of medical records of itself constituted "remote assessment". The Minister argued that "remote assessment" must involve a consultation.

Federal Court (Full Court). Is s 46(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) which, among other things, requires courts to "do all things necessary to ensure that the matter [the subject of a certificate under s 39B(2)] is not disclosed to any person other than a member of the court as constituted for the purposes of the [judicial review] proceeding" brought under s 44, constitutionally valid?

Federal Court. Is the phrase “extent of impediments if removed” under para 14(1)(e) is given meaning by para 14.5(1) of Direction 79? Is the “extent of impediments” if removed referred to in the chapeau to para 14.5 a mandatory consideration, by reason of para 14(1)(e)? In making a finding about the “extent of impediments”, was it mandatory to consider each of the matters in sub-paragraphs (a) to (c) of paragraph 14.5(1)? If the Tribunal made an error, should the materiality of the error be assessed as a balancing, as opposed to a binary, exercise?

High Court. In relation to s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), can it be said that there is "no barrier to the Minister reading and understanding the representations made by an applicant by other methods including the method of relying only upon a departmental summary of them, so long as that summary is accurate and contains a full account of the essential content"?

Federal Court (Full Court). Commonwealth made representations to Appellant that he was an Australian citizen by granting him a passport and enrolling him to vote. He reasonably relied on those representations to his detriment in that he never applied for citizenship and became liable to visa cancellation under s 501(3A). If Commonwealth was his guardian under the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 (Cth) and breached its duty to apply for citizenship for him, did the breach, coupled with the representations, render the Minister equitably estopped from treating him as a non-citizen?

Federal Court. Contrary to delegate, AAT found s 36(1C) was met and remitted matter. Minister then personally found Applicant was a danger to the Australian community and refused visa under s 501. Did Minister become "legally bound to apply the reasoning of the Tribunal (absent new circumstances having arisen) in that remitted application more broadly including in respect of his consideration of the Applicant’s representations advanced in reference to s 501". Was the AAT's decision and its reasoning "just another piece of material before him" that the Minister was entitled to place such weight on as he thought fit?

Federal Court: Appellant's previous counsel made a "deliberate decision to not argue before the [FCCA ground 1 now relied upon]". Was it "unjust for Appellant to be bound by error made by counsel"? Ground 2: Appellant applied to AAT and gave a Gmail address for correspondence. AAT sent email to the Gmail address and Appellant replied from it, CCing a Hotmail address. Appellant then sent AAT several emails from Hotmail, but never formally indicated a change of email address. AAT sent invitation to comment on adverse information to Gmail address, but Appellant claimed he did not receive it. Did the Hotmail address fit the description of "last email address ...  provided to the Tribunal", under s 379A(5)(d)? If so, did it also fit the description of "provided to the Tribunal ... in connection with the review", under s 379A(5)(d)? Is it essential that a "change of contact details" form be completed?

Federal Court. Are the words "before the Minister" in s 473DC(1)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) confined to information that was before the Minister in an applicant's application? Or is information "before the Minister" so long as a delegate has "actual awareness" of the information, whether or not it formed part of the application?

Federal Court: "On my understanding of the majority approach in SZMTA in those circumstances, read with MZAOL, where there is an admitted non-disclosure of the existence of a s 438 notification, there must be a two-step process undertaken by the supervising court on judicial review to determine “materiality” so as to arrive at a conclusion of jurisdictional error".