Federal Court (Full Court). Was the Full Court's decision in CWY20 contradicted by the High Court's decision in Plaintiff M1-2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17?
Some of the questions to the Full Court of the Federal Court (FCAFC) were as follows:
Question 1: Was the question in CWY20 "whether in the circumstances of addressing in that case an issue raised by domestic law, namely s 501A(2)(e) of the Act, consideration of the national interest could be reasonably undertaken without addressing the potential breach of international obligations"?
Question 2: Was the question in Plaintiff M1 "whether a decision-maker, considering revocation of a decision to cancel a visa under s 501CA(4), was required to determine whether non-refoulement obligations were owed to a former visa holder who made representations that raised a potential breach of those obligations, but where the person remained free to apply for a protection visa"?
Question 3: Was CWY20 contradicted by Plaintiff M1?
The FCAFC answered those questions as follows:
The remainder of this article is only available to Case Law and Platinum subscribers.
Read our Terms & Conditions and upgrade below:
Monthly Subscriptions
Annual Subscriptions
Where GST applies, the above amounts are inclusive of GST.
Content Types
Basic Content includes basic news, some media articles and selected announcements.
Premium Content includes all our content, except for Case Law Content. In other words, it includes Basic Content, plus all our articles on legislative and policy changes, industry updates and the Migration Legislation Tracker.
Case Law Content includes Basic Content, plus case law summaries, analysis and extract, but does not include Premium Content.
Platinum Content includes Basic Content, plus Premium Content, plus Case Law Content. In other words, it includes ALL our content.
If you already have a Case Law or Platinum subscription, click on 'Login' below.