Power in s 501BA to be exercised within reasonable time?
Federal Court. Is the exercise of the power in s 501BA(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) "subject to a requirement that it be exercised within a reasonable time having regard to the purpose for which the power was conferred and the circumstances in which it falls to be exercised by the Minister"? Is the Minister required to consider the effect of any delay in making a decision under s 501BA?
Legally unreasonable not to consider protection claims under s 501BA?
Federal Court. Was the Minister's decision under s 501BA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) "legally unreasonable in that he failed to consider (or deferred consideration of) the applicant’s protection claims, despite the applicant being unable to make a protection application by reason of being barred by operation of s 48A of the Act"?
Power in s 501BA to be exercised within a reasonable time?
Federal Court. Must the power in s 501BA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) be exercised within a reasonable period of time? May satisfaction of the preconditions to the exercise of the power in s 501BA arise by consideration of matters that have arisen after the s 501CA decision?
Seeking cancellation revocation equals waiving judicial review of cancellation?
Federal Court. In determining whether a time extension to file a judicial review application should be granted, can it be said that "the applicant made a decision to pursue revocation of the decision, and that such a course might be considered a waiver or election in relation to seeking judicial review, or at least should weigh strongly against the applicant"?
Legally unreasonable not to consider age of the evidence?
Federal Court. Was it legally unreasonable for the Minister to conclude that a certain factual situation persisted, without considering whether the age of the evidence made it safe to so conclude?
Deferral of assessment of non-refoulement obligations to be legally reasonable?
Federal Court. Must the deferral of the assessment of non-refoulement obligations to a subsequent protection visa application process be legally reasonable?
Appeal: duty of care owed to limit duration of detention?
Federal Court (Full Court). Are all duties of care discharged by the exercise of reasonable care, without imposing more stringent or onerous burdens? If so, does it necessarily follow that "a duty to achieve a particular result (eg confining the appellant’s detention to a specified duration) is not one that the law of tort would impose"?
Does FCA have jurisdiction to declare notification non-compliant with s 66?
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?
Does ‘national interest’ require exceptionality?
Federal Court. Must there be something exceptional about that which is said to be 'in the national interest' under s 501BA(2)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)?
GAP referral decisions: should reasons usually be given?
Federal Court. Should reasons as to whether to refer an ART decision to the ART's Guidance and Appeals Panel (GAP) usually not be given, for instance because, if a party appeals from that decision to the Court, "there may be some awkwardness in the [ART's] President making detailed findings on matters to be decided by the Court"?