Please select a judgment type from the filter below to view relevant judgments. On the AustLii website you can access previous judgments types FCoA (Appeals) judgments, FCoA First instance judgments, and FCC judgments.

Division 2 - General federal law

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Safe Haven Enterprise visa – decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority – application of ss 486E and 486F – whether the IAA failed to correctly interpret the meaning of ‘receiving country’ – where Australia is the country of former habitual residence – whether the IAA failed to consider situation of a member of a family unit where no claims advanced – whether the IAA was legally unreasonable – whether the IAA failed to consider claims or evidence – whether IAA properly identified country information – no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Where applicant had previously been granted a Temporary Protection visa which had since lapsed – whether Tribunal erred by failing to consider the previous protection assessment in determining whether application was a refugee for the purposes of the Migration Act – whether Tribunal erred by failing to inform the applicant that it would not consider the original protection assessment or would depart from the approach of the delegate

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – judicial review – decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal refusing to grant partner visa – Tribunal not satisfied there were compelling reasons for not applying Schedule 3 criteria – no point of principle – application dismissed 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Where a nomination application was withdrawn – where the Department had accepted and acted upon the withdrawal - whether the Department or the Tribunal had power to re-instate a nomination application said to have been erroneously withdrawn – where there was no such power – no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed. 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Whether Tribunal failed to consider essential integer of applicant’s claims – whether Tribunal failed to consider or properly consider evidence – whether reasoning for not accepting applicant’s identity was illogical or irrational

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Whether the Tribunal erred in finding that the applicant was not a genuine temporary entrant in Australia for the purpose of undertaking study – no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed. 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – judicial review – decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal refusing to grant visitor visa – Tribunal not satisfied exceptional circumstances exist for grant of visa – whether jurisdictional error – no point of principle – application dismissed.  

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – judicial review – decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal refusing Medical Treatment visa – whether Sch 2 cl 602.215 should be applied – whether applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia – no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed.   

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – judicial review – decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal – dismissal for non-appearance – costs ordered. 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – judicial review – decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal refusing to grant student visa – whether the Tribunal failed to comply with the requirements of s359AA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) - whether Tribunal erred in exercise of discretionary power to cancel visa – no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – application for judicial review – decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – student (temporary) (class TU) visa – where the applicant claims that the Tribunal erred in conducting a hearing in circumstances where the applicant had not responded to a request for information made by the Tribunal pursuant to either section 359 subsections (1) or (2) of the Act – consideration of whether the Tribunal’s request was made pursuant to section 359 subsection (1) or (2) and whether section 359C was enlivened in the circumstances – where the applicant further claims that the Tribunal erred in failing to observe section 359A of the Act by not putting certain information to the applicant – consideration of whether the Tribunal complied with its obligations under section 359A of the Act –  no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed with costs. 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – application for judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – where the Tribunal concluded it did not have jurisdiction to hear the application because it was made out of time – where the letter notifying the applicant of the Ministers decision of was sent to the applicant’s authorised recipient – whether notification of decision satisfied s 66(2)(d)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) by stating the time in which the application for review may be made – finding that the notification letter did comply with s 66(2)(d)(ii) so that notification was validly communicated  – no jurisdictional error otherwise identified in decision of Tribunal– application dismissed with costs 

Judgment published date:

FAIR WORK – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – interlocutory application for discovery – applicant seeking disclosure of various documents referred to in the respondent’s evidence and submissions or otherwise believed to exist – where discovery not allowed unless declared appropriate in the interests of the administration of justice – consideration of relevant factors – discovery application allowed in part. FAIR WORK - Objection to production of documents called by subpoena – whether legitimate forensic purpose – subpoenas set aside. 

Judgment published date:

FAIR WORK – general protections – where applicant alleges dismissal for a prohibited reason or reasons – complex background narrative – whether applicant possessed or exercised workplace rights – consideration of complaints applicant is able to make – where purported reason for dismissal was redundancy following organisational restructure – where corporate respondent identifies a single decision-maker – consideration of the scope of the corporation’s state of mind - whether other persons contributed to decision-making in a material, substantial or essential manner – whether states of mind of decision-maker or those who contributed infected by prohibited reasons – statutory presumption in favour of prohibited reasons alleged by applicant – whether respondent discharged the statutory onus – lanunae and inconsistencies in the evidence of decision-making processes and reasoning – where court not persuaded that applicant’s exercises of workplace rights did not actuate or influence decision to restructure and terminate – statutory onus to “prove otherwise” not discharged – whether second and third respondents involved in the corporate respondent’s contravention  

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – judicial review – agent failed to respond within requested time to request for information by Tribunal as a result of which Tribunal made decision without taking further action to obtain information – whether agent’s omission or conduct involved fraud, dishonesty or recklessness – onus on applicant to prove fraud – whether Tribunal’s procedural decision to make decision on the review without taking further action to obtain information was legally unreasonable  

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Protection (Class XA) (subclass 866) visa – judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – unreasonableness – failure to intellectually engage – no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Protection (Class XA) – judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – failure to consider – unreasonableness – illogicality – no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – protection visa - applicant citizen of Malaysia – applicant of Indian Malaysian ethnicity – applicant claimed discrimination in employment on basis of his religion – country information indicated risk of such treatment on basis of race – Tribunal erred in failing to consider whether applicant would face serious harm constituted by significant economic hardship for reasons of race – error material and therefore jurisdictional – writ of certiorari issued – writ of mandamus issued

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Medical Treatment visa – decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – matter listed for a final hearing – no appearance by or on behalf of the applicant – application dismissed for non-appearance pursuant to rule 13.06(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)  

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Class XA visa application – whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal failed to conduct the review required by the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – whether the Tribunal breached the natural justice requirements – whether the Tribunal’s decision was unreasonable and irrational and failed to take relevant considerations into account – two of the proposed grounds of judicial review have no merit – one ground of judicial review upheld –Tribunal decision quashed – matter remitted to the Tribunal 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Safe Haven Enterprise Visa – Whether the Immigration Assessment Authority (Authority) acted unreasonably, illogically or irrationally – Whether the Authority failed to exercise the power under s 473DC – Whether the Authority held the expertise or qualifications in the relevant and necessary areas – proposed grounds of judicial review have no merit – application dismissed 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – protection visa – no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed.  

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – student visa – no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed. 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION - Application for judicial review – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) (Subclass 500) visa – where Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed decision not to grant applicant the visa as applicant did not satisfy cl 500.212 of Sch 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) – whether Tribunal erred by failing to provide genuine consideration to Direction 69 – found no jurisdictional error on behalf of the Tribunal – Application dismissed. 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION - application for student visa – mandatory requirement to show current enrolment in course of study – applicant failed to provide evidence of Confirmation of Enrolment - criteria for grant of the visa not met – Tribunal compelled to affirm decision under review - no attendant jurisdictional error – application dismissed

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – application for student visa – whether applicant a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student – whether applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily  – whether Tribunal had regard to applicant’s offer of employment in Indonesia – whether genuine letter of support – application dismissed

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION - Class XA visa application – whether a testimony should be considered in isolation or within context – whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“AAT”) failed to consider country information – whether the AAT denied the applicant a fair opportunity to address adverse material – whether the AAT failed to acknowledge a real risk of harm – whether the AAT failed to consider the totality of claims raised  - whether the AAT failed to adhere to a Ministerial Direction – whether the AAT failed to adequately evaluate the risk of significant harm - proposed grounds of judicial review have no merit – proposed claims invite an impermissible merits review - application dismissed 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) (subclass 500) visa – judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – unreasonableness – failure to consider – no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed

Judgment published date:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application in a proceeding – application for extension of time to file originating application – factors for consideration – length of delay – explanation for delay – where multiple lodgment forms filed – whether affidavit required to be filed with application – whether address for service requirements met – whether medical evidence sufficient to explain delay – where self-represented – prejudice – whether respondent wound up - whether underlying claim has sufficient arguable merit. 

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application in a proceeding – application for adjournment of extension of time application for filing of originating application – adjournment – factors for consideration. 

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application in a proceeding – leave to appear at hearing of application in a proceeding by telephone – consideration of post-COVID pandemic practice of the Court – consideration of overarching civil practice and procedure provisions. 

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application in a proceeding – application for leave to appear by a foreign lawyer – legislative provisions concerning appearance in federal courts – application hypothetical. 

LAWYERS – Application for leave to appear by a foreign lawyer – legislative provisions concerning appearance in federal courts – application hypothetical. 

WORDS AND PHRASES – “must not make”.

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION –Application to review a decision of a Judicial Registrar – where Judicial Registrar summarily dismissed the Applicant’s application for judicial review – where application for judicial review does not have reasonable prospects of success – application to extend time to file the application to review the decision of the Registrar refused and application dismissed. 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION - Application for judicial review – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) (Subclass 500) visa – where Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed decision not to grant applicant the visa as applicant did not satisfy cl 500.212 of Sch 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) – whether Tribunal erred by failing to provide genuine consideration to Direction 69 – found no jurisdictional error on behalf of the Tribunal – Application dismissed. 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Application for Regional Employer Nomination (Class RN) (Subclass 187) visa – Administrative Appeals Tribunal not satisfied that the applicant had a valid nomination as required by cl.187.233(3) and affirmed Delegate’s decision to refuse the application for the Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) (Subclass 187) visa – application for judicial review – no meaningful ground of jurisdictional error asserted – no jurisdictional error established – application for judicial review dismissed.

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Judicial review application – decision of Immigration Assessment Authority – Shia Arab from Iraq – claims of fear of harm from ex-wife’s family in Iraq – whether failure to address a claim – whether error in relation to new information finding – whether failure to perform procedural duty in relation to consideration of new information – whether jurisdictional error 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Whether Tribunal failed to consider evidence or gave insufficient weight to evidence – whether Tribunal had duty to inquire – choice of country information   

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – judicial review – decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal refusing to grant protection visa – whether Tribunal required to put concerns about applicant’s evidence to applicant and provide opportunity to comment or respond – whether Tribunal’s refusal to give applicant more time to provide material to Tribunal was unreasonable – no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – costs – whether second applicant who was minor at time proceeding commenced should be ordered to pay respondent’s costs 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Dismissal for non-appearance – where parties were notified of the matter being relisted for a different time on the same date – where applicants emailed the Court on the morning of the hearing stating they could not attend - application dismissed 

Judgment published date:

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – copyright – applicant and respondent agreed to collaborate in the production of a book with the applicant agreeing to provide photographs and the respondent to compose the text – respondent published and sold a book containing photographs taken by the applicant without the applicant’s prior approval – whether the respondent has the applicant’s licence to reproduce the applicant’s photographs – the respondent did not have applicant’s licence – by publishing and selling the book the respondent infringed the applicant’s copyright in the photographs – the respondent also infringed the applicant’s copyright in photographs he had taken by the respondent uploading them to his business’s Facebook Page and to a webpage he operates – injunction, delivery up, and compensatory and additional damages awarded. 

Judgment published date:

HUMAN RIGHTS – Discrimination and harassment – Australian Human Rights Commission claim limited to disability discrimination – claims of disability, race and sex discrimination and sexual harassment in proposed application.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Extension of time application – originating application filed out of time – factors for consideration – length of delay – explanation for delay – where multiple lodgment forms filed – whether affidavit required to be filed with application – whether address for service requirements met – whether medical evidence sufficient to explain delay prejudice – whether underlying claim has sufficient arguable merit. 

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for summary dismissal– factors for consideration – whether reasonable prospects of success. WORDS AND PHRASES – “must not make”  

Judgment published date:

FAIR WORK – application pursuant to s 370(a)(ii) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) for extension of time within which to make a general protections court application – whether fair and appropriate to grant the extension of time – extension granted. 

Judgment published date:

FAIR WORK – claim for the payment of monies – whether contravention of s 45 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) - whether failure to pay amounts payable pursuant to Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award 2010 - enquiry as to the extent of the applicants’ entitlements – no mention of Award in the contracts of employment – enquiry into correct classifications of the applicants’ roles under the Award 

Judgment published date:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – where the applicant claims that the respondent took adverse action against him in breach of sections 340(1) and 343(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) in commencing a Code of Conduct Investigation which ultimately led to the termination of his employment – where the applicant claims that the respondent took adverse action against him by discriminating against him as compared to other employees under section 351 of the Act –  consideration of whether the applicant was at a disadvantage in participating in the Code of Conduct Investigation – consideration of whether the respondent terminated the applicant’s employment for, or for reasons which included him exercising a workplace right – consideration of whether the respondent discriminated against the applicant within the meaning of section 351 – finding that there was no breach of sections 340(1), 343(1) or 351 in the circumstances – application dismissed. 

Judgment published date:

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – copyright – applicant and respondent agreed to collaborate in the production of a book with the applicant agreeing to provide photographs and the respondent to compose the text – respondent published and sold a book containing photographs taken by the applicant without the applicant’s prior approval – whether the respondent has the applicant’s licence to reproduce the applicant’s photographs – the respondent did not have applicant’s licence – by publishing and selling the book the respondent infringed the applicant’s copyright in the photographs – the respondent also infringed the applicant’s copyright in photographs he had taken by the respondent uploading them to his business’s Facebook Page and to a webpage he operates – injunction, delivery up, and compensatory and additional damages awarded. 

Judgment published date:

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – Costs – where order made referring matter to mediation – where respondent was ordered to provide documents seven days before the scheduled date of the mediation – where respondent failed to comply with order but mediation nevertheless proceeded – whether in those circumstances the respondent should be ordered to pay the applicant’s costs of and in relation to the mediation – application dismissed because the applicant has not demonstrated that the respondent’s default caused the applicant to incur costs in relation to the mediation he would otherwise not have incurred – order made that parties pay their own costs of and in relation to the mediation.

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – judicial review – decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal refusing to grant protection visa – whether the Tribunal considered relevant materials and issues – whether Tribunal was required to consider claims of persecution of Tao practitioners - no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed. 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – judicial review – decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal refusing to grant protection visa – no point of principle – application dismissed 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – application for judicial review – decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority to refuse to grant the applicant a safe haven enterprise (subclass 790) visa – where the applicant claims that the Authority unreasonably refused to exercise its discretion to interview the applicant pursuant to section 473DB of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)  – consideration of the reasonableness of the Authority’s decision to not invite the applicant to an interview – no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed with costs. 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – protection visa – exercise of the discretion to proceed under s 426A(1A)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 after the applicant failed to appear – application dismissed.

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – student (class TU) (subclass 500) visa – where visa application refused by delegate of the Minister – review of decision of the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirming delegate’s decision – where Tribunal found first applicant was not a genuine temporary entrant – Tribunal’s decision not attended by jurisdictional error – application for judicial review dismissed 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – judicial review – decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal refusing to grant partner visa – whether Tribunal required to make finding as to whether applicant and sponsor were telling the truth – whether Tribunal required to make finding as to credibility or demeanour of applicant and sponsor – no jurisdictional error established 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – judicial review application – decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal refusing to grant student visa – whether applicant satisfied clause 500.212 – no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed.