Case Law Updates

Federal Court. Does the balance of convenience favour the granting of an interlocutory injunction in circumstances where "it is arguable as to whether or not jurisdiction exists, and in turn whether or not there has been a departure from ministerially prescribed duties"? What is the prima facie position in relation to the costs of an interlocutory application for an injunction?

Federal Court. If the Minister relies on an Adverse Security Assessment (ASA) rather than independently assessing the risk posed by a person, does this amount to dictation? Can the Minister consider non-refoulement obligations as part of the residual discretion under s 501(2)-(3)? Is a decision under s 501(3) or 501C(4) rendered invalid by relying on s 501(6)(g) in circumstances where the ASA is invalid? In assessing whether s 501C(4)(b) is met, is the Minister limited to considering the same sub-sections of s 501(6) which founded cancellation under s 501(3)?

Federal Court. Can it be said that "an exercise of power under s 501(3A) [of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)] is invalid where, objectively, a sentence of imprisonment of 12 months or more existing at the date of the cancellation decision is subsequently reduced on appeal to less than 12 months"?

Federal Court. Can it be said in the context of s 477(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) that "a court determining an application for extension of time commits jurisdictional error whenever it omits to recite and deal with each explanation for delay"? Does the requirement that an error be material in order to be a jurisdictional error, as identified in Hossain, apply to a decision of the Federal Circuit Court under s 477(2) as much as it does to an administrative decision maker?

Federal Court (Full Court). Section 116(1)(e) called for the consideration of future possibilities which proceeded by drawing inferences from known facts and "reasonable conjecture within the parameters set by the historical facts". To these considerations should the following ones be added as legitimate bases for the assessment process: "common sense, a reasonable appreciation of human experience, and personal knowledge or specialised knowledge of the Minister or his or her Department"?

Federal Court. Section 24(1A) of the FCA Act provided that an appeal shall not be brought from an interlocutory judgement unless the FCA gives leave. Does Jackson apply equally to the notice of appeal filed in this case? If so, did the exception under s 24(1C) apply? Did the decision under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) interfere with the sentence and parole orders of the District Court of NSW in violation of the separations of powers?

Federal Court. Did the primary judge err in: refusing to provide written reasons following delivery of his ex tempore reasons; communicating that he had no power to publish written reasons? If so to the latter question, does that error invalidate the primary judge’s exercise of judicial power? Does the primary judge’s indication that he would not settle a form of written reasons mean that he failed to give reasons? Can an incomplete transcript of oral reasons be relied upon as reasons of the Court?

Federal Court. Can it be said that "the generally serious consequences of refoulement – but not the particular consequences in an individual case – are taken into account in giving meaning and content to the requirement that there be “serious reasons for considering”" pursuant to s 5H(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)? How to interpret Articles 22(1) and 25(3)(c)-(d) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, entered into force 1 July 2002?

Federal Court. Can the Tribunal determine for itself that it will not comply with a court order until it is known whether such an order is overturned by a higher court?

Federal Court. Did s 500(6H) "preclude the Tribunal from considering information which is not presented by, or on behalf of an applicant, including information that arises from cross-examination or answers given in response to questions put by the Tribunal"? Does s 500(6H) have the effect that oral evidence, which may be given in support of a review applicant’s case cannot "depar[t] in a substantive way from the content of the written statements"?