Case Law Updates

Federal Court. In order for 'information' to enliven s 359A(1), is it "necessary that it should contain in its terms a ‘rejection, denial or undermining’ of an applicant’s claims to be entitled to the grant of the visa" and that "the claims [are] to be understood as the criteria for the visa being sought"? Can AAT Members be compelled to give evidence about their decisions? Is it necessarily legally unreasonable for a decision-maker to conclude that an artist who applied for a distinguished talent visa applicant should not be required to audition for a role?

High Court. Do the verbs "give" and "invite" in s 501CA(3) require that regard be had to the circumstances of the recipient? Must the information and invitation be given by the Minister, or a delegate, personally? Did the timeframe of 28 days within which to make a revocation request under s 501CA(4) run from the date the invitation was sent via email to the immigration detention centre, instead of when it was handed to the respondent a day later? By incorrectly stating the 28 days by reference to the date of the email, was the invitation invalid? Can an analogy be drawn with DFQ17 ?

High Court. Can it be said that "an unrevoked grant of special leave to appeal entitles an appellant to advance any ground of appeal on which special leave has been granted unless precluded by operation of law such as by waiver or estoppel"?

High Court. In assessing whether a statute which is silent on a topic was nevertheless intended by its drafter to be governed in a certain way on that topic, is it telling that the drafter had before it a different statute from another jurisdiction on the same topic and decided not to adopt it? Is there a "common law principle that, if complete relief is available in a proceeding on foot, it is prima facie vexatious and oppressive to commence a second proceeding dealing with the same controversy"? Must any Act be read as a harmonious whole?

Federal Court. Do the "obligations to accord natural justice and the obligation to act within the bounds of legal reasonableness are closely linked and overlap to some extent"? Does "the codifying effect of s 473DA(1)" mean that, "except to the extent that procedural fairness overlaps with legal unreasonableness, procedural fairness is not the “lens” through which the content of procedural obligations imposed on the Authority in the conduct of a review is to be determined"?

Federal Court (Full Court). Do Ch III of the Commonwealth Constitution, the High Court decisions in Dietrich and (No 2), the common law of procedural fairness or customary international support the conclusion that non-citizens have a right to legal representation against the Minister?

Federal Court. Are decision-makers required to identify the precise respects in which information is false or misleading? Can the question of whether a person provided "false or misleading information in a material particular" within the meaning of PIC 4020 be answered by a court? In order for the "false or misleading in a material particular" limb of PIC 4020 to be enlivened against a visa applicant, must the applicant have knowledge that the information is false or misleading? If so, are decision-makers required to identify knowledge as a requirement and make an express finding about the matter? Does the materiality threshold involve a question of whether the chances of a different outcome in the absence of error would have been "slim"?

DHA lodged complaint against RMA. To what extent should RMAs: obtain instructions directly from clients, instead of 3rd parties; undertake checks to verify the authenticity of documents; compare different signatures to confirm documents were signed by the same person? Should RMAs alert DHA or MARA to frauds? Can metadata be used to determine whether RMA misled MARA? If MARA asks for copies of "any" correspondence, does it mean only any "relevant" correspondence? If client asks for an RMA to call back later, does this constitute instructions?

Federal Court. Does s 41(2) of the AAT Act authorise the making of an order after the AAT has made its decision? Is the subject of s 43(5C) the operation or implementation of the AAT's decision, instead of the decision under review by the AAT? Can it be said that "the power under s 44A(2)..., to make an order staying or otherwise affecting the operation or implementation of a decision the subject of an appeal to [FCA], should be construed so that it is [not] limited to a power that has prospective effect only", at least in circumstances where an "applicant has made a claim for final relief that the Tribunal’s decision be set aside ab initio"?

Federal Court (Full Court). "Where it may be inferred that a Tribunal consciously determined not to have regard to extraneous and prejudicial information in making its decision, [does it necessarily follow] that the fair-minded lay observer would exclude the possibility that the Tribunal might have been subconsciously affected by that information"? In determining a claim of apprehended bias where the Secretary provided the Tribunal with irrelevant, but highly prejudicial, material in the context of Part 7 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), what is the knowledge attributable to the hypothetical fair-minded lay observer?