Case Law Updates

Federal Court. Can it be said that the "Minister has no interests in the outcome of this litigation beyond ensuring that the law of the Parliament is applied correctly to the personal circumstances of a litigant who has been deprived of his liberty by the State"?

Federal Circuit and Family Court. The Tribunal refused to release information under s 362A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), finding that disclosure was not permitted under the Australian Privacy Principle 6. Did the Tribunal make an error, in that the primary purpose of collecting such information was the same for which the delegate and Tribunal would have disclosed it, namely to assess whether the applicant was the sponsor's spouse?

Federal Court. Was it impossible for the Applicant to demonstrate the testing of his rehabilitation in the community, as he had not been in the community, with the result that the finding about lack of testing in the community was illogical?

Federal Circuit and Family Court. Did the Tribunal’s unattributed copying from the delegate’s reasons, combined with other factors, lead to the conclusion that it failed to bring its own independent mind to the merits of the review? If so, is that a type of error that is material by definition?

Federal Court. Was it "legally unreasonable for the Authority not to consider getting 'new information' by clicking on the link that was provided as the source of what was described by the appellant as screenshots from the appellant's public Facebook account"?

Federal Circuit and Family Court. The Minister sought to set-off a costs order made in the applicant's favour out of a costs order made in the Minister's favour in previous court proceedings. Can it be said that "there is a public interest in people challenging governmental decisions being adequately legally represented, and allowing a set-off in circumstances such as the present may discourage appropriate lawyers from acting"?

Federal Court. Can it be said that "the detail with which the Tribunal addresses other matters, not obviously more pressing than this claim, gives rise to the inference that it overlooked the claim"? Further, although it was open to the Tribunal not to accept a claim, or to give it little weight, can it be said that "it would not have been rational or reasonable for the Tribunal to form such a dismissive view of this claim that it did not warrant any mention in its reasons"?

Federal Court. In the context of assessing the national interest, would the threshold of being a danger to the community only be met if the applicant was able to be a part of that community and neither in gaol nor in immigration detention?

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). Does the decision to be made as to whether to revoke a visa cancellation under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) require "each of the factors that are listed in s 8.4(4) [of Direction 99] to be taken into account as part of the final weighing exercise to be undertaken in order to comply with the direction"?