Case Law Updates

High Court. Is it necessary for there to be a "matter" before the Full Court of the Federal Court for it to have jurisdiction in an appeal? If so, can it be said that there was no "matter" before the Full Court "because the orders that the Commonwealth parties sought to appeal had no operative legal effect by the time the Full Court determined the appeals"?

Federal Court. Can it be said in the context of s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) that, "in any particular case, the practical reality of a person’s situation may be such that although there are theoretical avenues by which their immigration detention might be brought to an end, no such avenue presently has any realistic possibility of materialising"?

Federal Court. Are orders made by a superior court infected by jurisdictional error valid until set aside? Are orders made by an inferior court infected by jurisdictional error valid until set aside?

Federal Court (Full Court). Is the vulnerability of a particular victim because of his or her characteristics such as physical stature relative to the characteristics of the offender a relevant vulnerability for the purposes of paras 8.1.1(1)(b)(ii) and 8.4(2)(c) of Direction 90?

Federal Court. Was it irrational or legally unreasonable for the Tribunal not to identify for the purpose of s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) a rational or intelligible basis for not giving any weight to the applicant’s representations as to her family ties in favour of revocation of the mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s visa?

Federal Court (Full Court). Is compliance with the Direction 90 achieved by focussing upon individual considerations and attributing some form of “weight” to that consideration viewed in isolation, without disclosing any process of reasoning which led from the attachment of weight to each consideration to the ultimate conclusion?

Federal Court. Should there be an implication in s 198(6) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) that "the duty imposed on an officer to remove him as soon as reasonably practicable had to be postponed while there was a realistic possibility that the Minister would consider exercising his discretion to lift the bar under s 48B(1), until after the Minister made a procedural decision, through the Department following his instructions in the Guidelines, that the request was in a class of case that he either would or would not consider"?

Federal Court. In Davis, the High Court held that, in the 2016 Ministerial Guidelines issued in relation to section 351 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), the factors that the Department was instructed to assess and balance operated as "an approximation of the public interest". Did the 2016 Ministerial instructions issued in relation to s 195A also operate as "an approximation of the public interest"?

Federal Court. Did the terrible pressures of time under which the Tribunal was obliged to make its review decision (the 84-day rule in s 500(6L(c)) provide a justification for the Tribunal having failed to take into account the best interests of minor children to be affected by its decision? Is the offence of failing to comply with a request made by the police to supply personal details, per se, contemplated by para 8.1.1(1)(b)(ii) of Direction 90?

Federal Court (Full Court). In order to make out the statutory grounds of review specified in s 5 of the ADJR Act, was it necessary for the judicial review applicant to show that any errors were jurisdictional? In relation to the exercise of the discretion under s 16 of the ADJR Act as to whether to grant relief, is there a like standard of “reasonable conjecture” to that which informs whether an error is jurisdictional?