How low is the materiality test threshold?

Federal Court (Full Court). FCA had said: "The Tribunal’s reasons provide no indication that matters were finely balanced. On the contrary, protection of the Australian community weighed heavily against revocation". Did FCA engage in merits review by saying that mandatory considerations under s 501CA(4) which AAT had ignored "were not sufficient to outweigh those matters" and that AAT's error was thus immaterial? Does the materiality test threshold vary from statute to statute? Does the content of the materiality test expounded in SZMTA apply only to denial of procedural fairness? Does the materiality threshold vary according to the type of decision within the Migration Act? Is the threshold for determining materiality that there must be a possibility of a successful outcome that is more than 'infinitesimal'? Was it necessary, in order to establish the materiality of AAT's error, for Appellant to demonstrate by evidence what he would have done had error not been made?

The questions to the Full Court of Federal Court (FCAFC) were as follows:

Question 1: Did the Federal Court engage in merits review by saying that mandatory considerations under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) which the Tribunal had ignored "were not sufficient to outweigh those matters" and that the Tribunal's error was thus immaterial?

Question 2: Does the materiality test threshold vary from statute to statute?

Question 3: Does the content of the materiality test expounded in SZMTA apply only to denial of procedural fairness?

Question 4: Does the materiality threshold vary according to the type of decision within the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)?

Question 5: Is the threshold for determining materiality that there must be a possibility of a successful outcome that is more than 'infinitesimal'?

Question 6: Was it necessary, in order to establish the materiality of the Tribunal's error, for the Appellant to demonstrate by evidence what he would have done had the relevant error not been made?

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

Premium
Basic Content
Premium Content
-
-
$ 29 /month
Subscribe
Case Law
Basic Content
-
Case Law Content
-
$ 49 / month
Subscribe
Platinum
Basic Content
Premium Content
Case Law Content
Save $ 9 / month
$ 69 / month
Subscribe

Annual Subscriptions

Premium
Basic Content
Premium Content
-
Save $ 49 / year
$ 299 / year
Subscribe
Case Law
Basic Content
-
Case Law Content
Save $ 89 / year
$ 499 / year
Subscribe
Platinum
Basic Content
Premium Content
Case Law Content
Save $ 237 / year
$ 699 / year
Subscribe

 

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.