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"?
Some of the questions to the Federal Court (FCA) were as follows:
Question 1: 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"?
Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is "yes", can it be said that "the codifying effect of s 473DA(1) meant 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"?
Question 3: Can it be legally unreasonable for the Immigration Assessment Authority not to invite an applicant to give new information pursuant to s 473DC(3) "in circumstances where the delegate had relevant information within s 57(1) of the Act, but did not disclose it pursuant to s 57(2) and the Authority is provided with the information and proposes to act on it as the reason, or part of the reason, for refusing the application"?
The FCA answered those questions as follows: