Inordinate delay: relevant principles

Federal Court. Does NAIS prescribe that the Tribunal will make a jurisdictional error, unless it acknowledges in its reasons the existence of a substantive delay between the hearing and its decision? Can it be said that, "whenever there is an argument as to delay and the effect thereof (regardless of the length of the delay and circumstances of the case), ... the Tribunal’s reasons are necessarily irrelevant to that consideration"? Once significant delay is established, does the evidentiary onus shift to the Minister?

Some of the questions to the Federal Court (FCA) were as follows:

Question 1: Is the consultation of contemporaneous notes and tape recordings of the proceedings by the Tribunal a long time after a hearing was conducted "a satisfactory substitute for the observation and formation of impressions of persons in the flesh, and the timely personal commitment of these to paper as part of the process of making a decision in the light of the materials supplied to the Tribunal and all the arguments advanced to it"?

Question 2: Does NAIS prescribe that the Tribunal will make a jurisdictional error, unless it acknowledges in its reasons the existence of a substantive delay between the hearing and its decision?

Question 3: Can it be said that, "whenever there is an argument as to delay and the effect thereof (regardless of the length of the delay and circumstances of the case), ... the Tribunal’s reasons are necessarily irrelevant to that consideration"?

Question 4: Can it be said that, once significant delay between a Tribunal hearing and its decision is established, "the evidentiary onus shifts" to the Minister?

Question 5: Is the length of any delay "necessarily a relevant consideration in determining whether it is causative of error"?

The FCA 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.

Previous articleCan AAT ask if applicant does not want a hearing?
Next articleFYBR: 3-staged process?