Case Law Updates

High Court. Does an order for costs in favour of an unincorporated law firm entitle the firm to obtain recompense for legal work performed by an employed solicitor of the firm?

Federal Court. Can it be said that the risk of harm to the applicant from violence and crime upon removal to South Sudan is not reduced by reason that the applicant may make a protection visa application, as such an application may be refused? In other words, should Plaintiff M1 be distinguished?

Federal Court. Was the Applicant inhibited in his task of seeking judicial review within the 35-day statutory deadline, because the reasons for the decision of the Tribunal followed 21 days after the decision was made? Is it for the Court to set to one side a clearly expressed conclusion by the Tribunal on the basis that it may be a mistake?

Federal Court. Is the question in para 8.3(4)(a)(i) of Direction 99 whether the person was successful in respect of issues such as community participation, employment, or education during his or her formative years relevant in considering whether his or her formative years were spent in Australia? Did para 8.5(2)(a)-(f) exhaustively identify the relevant categories of conduct?

Federal Court. Does the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Court encompass an appeal from the issue of a writ of habeas corpus? Is the issue of a writ of habeas corpus interlocutory in nature? Did s 198AD(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) apply to a person who: (a) has received a favourable exercise of the power in s 46A(2); or is a “fast track applicant” within the meaning of the Act?

Federal Court. Was it legally unreasonable for the Minister to find that cancellation of the visa was in the national interest because of the risk to the Australian community, given that the applicant would be in the community in any event due to NZYQ?

Federal Court. Was the day the person made an application for citizenship the day it was dispatched? Or was it made the day it was received by the Minister?

Federal Circuit and Family Court. The AAT's reasons copied many passages from the reasons of the very decision under review. Did the AAT fail to turn its own independent mind to the consideration of the case? Did the lack of disclosure of its intended reliance on those passages amount to a denial of procedural fairness?

Federal Court. Can it be said that the reference in para 8.3(1) of Direction 99 to "immediate family members in Australia" include children, although they need not be children? Is the question under cl 8.4(4)(d) "not concerned with relationships which may come into existence in the future but rather with those which presently exist"?

Federal Circuit and Family Court. In reviewing a refusal to grant a student visa to an Indian national who sought to study cookery in Australia, the AAT said at the hearing: "I know that 99% of the cooks in India don’t come here and study". Was the AAT's decision affected by apprehended bias?