Federal Court. Might legal unreasonableness (in the sense that the result itself bespeaks error) be found on the basis that there is no plausible justification for the timing of a decision under s 501BA(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) that is otherwise within power?
Some of the questions to the Federal Court (FCA) were as follows:
Question 1: Is the identification of a reasonable time within which to make a decision under s 501BA(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) evaluative and fact-specific, but not discretionary?
Question 2: Is the fact that the applicant held a permanent visa relevant to the determination of what a reasonable time within which to make a decision under s 501BA(2) was?
Question 3: Can it be said that the implied condition of reasonableness "is not confined to why a statutory decision is made; it extends to how a statutory decision is made"?
Question 4: If the answer to Question 3 is 'yes', does it follow that "legal unreasonableness (in the sense that “the result itself bespeaks error” ...) might be found on the basis that there is no plausible justification for the timing of a decision that is otherwise within power"?
Question 5: If the answer to Question 4 is 'yes', would the delay need to be capricious, perverse or otherwise incapable of justification, to be labelled as legally unreasonable?
The FCA answered those questions as follows: