Case Law Updates

High Court. Does the information to be provided in compliance with s 29(1)(c) of the AAT Act need to be information of the slightest assistance to the Tribunal or any other party to the proceeding? Is non-compliance with s 29(1)(c) intended to result in the invalidity of a Tribunal application?

Federal Court. May a jurisdictional error in the form of a breach of procedural fairness "be established where a Tribunal, or a cross-examiner, asks a question in circumstances which give rise to a right to refuse to answer on the basis of the privilege against self-incrimination and a sufficient explanation of the existence of the right to refuse to answer is not given"?

Federal Court. In circumstances where the Court could not grant mandamus compelling the consideration of the requests for Ministerial intervention, was there utility in granting certiorari and prohibition?

Federal Court (Full Court). Is the question of whether a person qualifies as “a parent” under s 10B(1) of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 (Cth) a question of fact to be determined by the Court? Can it be said that, "absent a biological parental relationship, parentage typically is a matter of intense commitment which involves acknowledging that other person as one’s own child"?

Federal Court. Does s 36(1C)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) call for "comparative exercise to assess whether the grant of a protection visa would result in an increase in the danger to the community posed by the applicant over the danger to the community posed by the applicant if a protection visa were not granted"?

Federal Court (Full Court). Instead of saying that errors in the form of legal unreasonableness in the making of a finding “on the way” to the final conclusion are material by definition, can it be said that they are material if they are critical findings, in the sense that there is a built-in requirement of materiality?

Federal Court (Full Court). Can it be said that "the national interest requires an emergency, a significant threat or other circumstances involving the nation as a whole" and that "[t]he expression ‘national’ also directs attention to the interests of Australia as a whole as distinct from local or regional interests within Australia"?

Federal Court. In circumstances where the non-citizen was convicted in Victoria, did the Tribunal err by applying Thornton and Lesianawai without giving any consideration to the question of whether there was any Victorian law that attracted the operation of s 85ZR(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)?

Federal Court. In the context of s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), did the Tribunal err in assessing the legal consequences of its decision in that it wrongly found that indefinite exclusion from Australia under special return criterion 5001 of Schedule 5 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) was an intended consequence of the cancellation of his visa by operation of law and thus necessarily of neutral weight?