Case Law Updates

Federal Court. Was the Tribunal obliged under para 9.1(6) of Direction 90, in reviewing a decision made under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), to consider whether it was appropriate to assume that the ‘claimed harm’ would occur?

High Court. In determining whether removal to a country is practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future, can the steps practically available to be taken "be expected frequently to include administrative processes directed to removal which require the cooperation of the detainee and in which the detainee has the capacity to cooperate"?

High Court. Does functus officio address the capacity, or authority, to adjudicate a matter, whereas estoppel addresses the capacity of the litigants to litigate a matter?

Federal Court (Full Court). Did the terms of cl 8.3(4)(a)(i) suggest that decision-makers were at liberty to attribute such weight as they see fit to that factor, providing the weight they attribute is not below the threshold of “considerable weight”? In other words, did cl 8.3(4)(a)(i) contemplate that decision-makers should give the fact of residence in Australia during a non-citizen’s formative years a degree of weight somewhere in the range at or above the minimum that can be described as “considerable”?

Federal Court. In determining whether to grant an interlocutory injunction to prevent the Applicant's removal, is it sufficient that the underlying judicial review proceeding challenge only the discharge of the obligation under s 66, without directly challenging the exercise of the power under s 198 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)? Does the FCA have jurisdiction to declare a notification as non-compliant with s 66 of the Act?

Federal Court. Does the rule in Browne and Dunn, being one of fairness, apply equally to a trial judge as to counsel?

Federal Court. Does use of the word “means” in cl 4(1) of Direction 110 limit the definition of “family violence” to the two types of conduct as described, namely conduct that "coerces or controls a member of the person’s family" or "causes the family member to be fearful"?

Federal Court (Full Court) extends the High Court's materiality test in Hossain: 'the requirement of materiality for there to be jurisdictional error applies to a court as much as it does to an administrative decision-maker'

Federal Court (Full Court): although the Tribunal informed the Appellant about the existence of confidential information, it did not inform her about the existence of a non-disclosure certificate; that was an error; the question was whether that error was jurisdictional; that depended, to some extent, on whether the Appellant should have have requested further detail of the confidential information that was not covered by the non-disclosure certificate

Federal Court: In deciding whether to affirm a decision of the Minister to cancel an approval for citizenship under s 25 of the Citizenship Act 2007, was the AAT required to take into account the legal consequences of its decision? If so, was the removal from Australia a legal consequence? Was the AAT required to take into account "non-protection" representations about what would happen if the AAT affirmed the citizenship approval cancellation?