Case Law Updates

Federal Court. In circumstances where a judicial review applicant previously brought judicial review proceedings against the same administrative decision in question, is the question of whether the subsequent application is prevented by the principles of res judicata or Anshun estoppel determined by treating judicial review as a whole as the relevant "cause of action"? Was the Tribunal entitled to consider an ITOA and its conclusion for the purpose of s 501CA(4)? Was Tribunal required to be satisfied of Art 1C of the Convention?

Federal Court. The Minister submitted to the Tribunal that it should give no weight to the statements by the applicant's witnesses, as they had not been made available for cross-examination. Was the applicant denied procedural fairness in circumstances where his representative: did not object to the course proposed by the Minister or indicate to the Tribunal that he was caught by surprise by that submission; was asked by the Tribunal whether he wished to respond to any points made by the Minister’s representative?

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?

Federal Court. Cl 8(3) of Direction 79 provides: "Both primary and other considerations may weigh in favour of, or against, refusal, cancellation of the visa, or whether or not to revoke a mandatory cancellation of a visa". Must decision-makers make express findings on each of those considerations? When considering under cl 14.5 the extent of impediments if Applicant were removed, AAT found it "appropriate to afford the expectations of the Australian community moderate weight in favour of non-revocation", which expectations had already been considered. Was AAT allowed to double-count those expectations?

Federal Court: Ministerial Direction No 65, now replaced by Direction No 79, provided as follows: "Where the [DFAT] has prepared a country information assessment expressly for protection status determination processes, and that assessment is available to the decision-maker, the decision-maker must take into account that assessment, where relevant, in making that decision". Are decision makers obliged to consider DFAT reports when making decisions to which Direction No 65 applies?

Federal Court (Full Court). Should decision-makers, when addressing the consideration in para 13.3 of Direction 79, "eschew any reference to, or reliance upon, the principles expressed in paras 6.3(2) and (3), or any other part of para 6.3, or else stray into error" by assessing for itself what the community expectations are?

Federal Court. Should the FCA grant peremptory mandamus, compelling the Minister to grant the Appellant a SHEV? Is consideration of the "national interest" under cl 790.227 "limited to whether or not the appellant poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the Australian community"? May the Minister justify delay where he or she is exhausting his or her rights of appellate review, including by applying to the High Court for special leave to appeal from the FCAFC's decision?

Can RMAs draft statutory declarations for clients or provide them with templates? If so, to what extent? Should an RMA "doubt the information provided by ... client/s, the witnesses or the Declarants or any documents that [the RMA] has witnessed”? Does the responsibility to provide correct information lie with the person making a declaration? If a client keeps a copy of the service agreement, but the RMA does not, is the RMA entitled to payments? If "the way [an RMA] has managed [his/her] practice has proven successful over the years", does that "absolve" the RMA of his/her recording keeping obligations? Can it be said that "assisting ... clients with completing their forms and preparing their statutory declaration along with the signing of the Form 956" are sufficient to comply with cl 2.8(a), according to which RMAs must confirm client's instructions in writing?

'I am satisfied that the power conferred upon the AAT under s 29(7), (8), (9) and (10) [of the AAT Act] to extend time applies in relation to applications for review of a Part 5 – reviewable decision under s 347(1)(b)(i) of the [Migration Act]'.

Federal Court (Full Court). Section 36(1C)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) provided: "A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant is not a person whom the Minister considers, on reasonable grounds … having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, is a danger to the Australian community.”