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 – application to reinstate matter dismissed for non-appearance – decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to refuse a protection visa – whether in interests of justice to reinstate - whether reasonable excuse for non-appearance – whether arguable case of jurisdictional error identified – application dismissed

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – protection visa – error of fact – denial of procedural fairness (interpreter) – bias - failure to consider integer – no jurisdictional error- application dismissed 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION- Protection (Subclass 866) visa - application for extension of time for judicial review of decision of the Administrative Appeal Tribunal – application 1322 days late – extreme delay – no arguable prospects of success – not in interests of administration of justice - application dismissed 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Temporary Work (Skilled) (Subclass 457) visa – Visa cancellation – Exercise of discretion by Tribunal - Whether Tribunal took account of irrelevant considerations – Whether Tribunal failed to consider relevant considerations - Whether unreasonable to refuse to grant further adjournment to obtain a suitable employer sponsor - Whether an exclusion period applied - Application dismissed. 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – related applications for judicial review of decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – where the Tribunal’s review of a visa application refusal depended upon the outcome of its review of a nomination refusal decision – whether the Tribunal misunderstood centrally relevant contentions made by the applicant in the nomination refusal matter – application dismissed

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – protection visa – decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – whether the Tribunal failed to properly consider evidence – whether the Tribunal’s findings were unreasonable – sur place claims – no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed 

Judgment published date:

 MIGRATION – Skilled Regional Sponsored (Provisional) (Subclass 489) visa - Application for judicial review – Whether the Tribunal applied the wrong test – Whether the Tribunal failed to identify compassionate or compelling circumstances – Application dismissed.

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) (Subclass 500) visa – Application for judicial review –Whether the applicant’s response pursuant to s 359(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) was received within the prescribed time limit – Whether Tribunal was entitled to make a decision on the review without a hearing – No jurisdictional error - Application dismissed. 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION - costs – application for an order that costs be assessed on a lump sum basis – whether there is sufficient information on the basis of which a lump sum costs order may be made – sufficient information available – lump sum costs order made.  

Judgment published date:

INDUSTRIAL LAW- practice and procedure – application for leave to amend statement of claim – whether application made too late given the pendency of the final hearing – whether adequate explanation for delay – whether proposed amendment discloses reasonably arguable cause of action – whether if leave to amend is granted the respondents would suffer prejudice – application refused.  

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – application for judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal - application for Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa – whether the Tribunal failed to comply with the requirements of s 360(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in failing to invite the applicants to a hearing and was wrong when it found it did not have jurisdiction – the Tribunal failed to comply with s 360(1) of the Act – whether the failure was material – whether relief ought to be refused on the basis of futility – application dismissed 

Judgment published date:

BANKRUPTCY – Application for review of sequestration order made by Registrar – whether preconditions for making sequestration order are satisfied – whether there is any reason why a sequestration order ought not be made – application for review dismissed and sequestration order affirmed

Judgment published date:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – FAIR WORK – application – dismissal from employment in contravention of general protections – dormant proceedings – no steps taken for six years – whether the applicant satisfied the Court that the proceeding should not be dismissed – application dismissed. 

Judgment published date:

BANKRUPTCY – Application for review of the exercise of power by a Registrar– Whether there is any sufficient cause why sequestration order ought not be made – Submissions based on pseudo-law – Whether obligation to pay pecuniary liability discharged by a promissory note – Whether promissory note was issued and tendered – Application dismissed - Sequestration order affirmed.  

Judgment published date:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – FAIR WORK – application for default judgment – where the first respondent has not provided an address for service and not complied with orders of the Court – consideration of rr 13.04(2) and 13.05(2)(c) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2)(General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) – alleged contraventions of ss 44, 45, 323(1) and 542(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – upon admissions taken to have been made by reason of the first respondent’s default contraventions found and default judgment entered.

Judgment published date:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – Penalty for admitted contravention of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – factors for consideration – nature of circumstances leading to contravention – where human error – where no human or technological system to check termination of employment payments – whether serious contravention for purposes of s 557A – nature and extent of loss – size and financial resources of contravener whether cooperation, contrition and corrective action by contravener – whether prior contraventions – whether contravention deliberate – whether senior management involved in contravention – deterrence – need for general deterrence – whether need for specific deterrence – appropriate measure of specific deterrence – assessment of penalty – penalty to be paid to applicant.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Adjournment – whether penalty hearing for admitted contravention of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) to be adjourned – where Federal Court appeal on liability where no liability found other than for admitted contravention – overarching civil practice and procedure provisions – resolution of the dispute as to penalty as quickly and efficiently as possible – efficient  utilisation of judicial resources of this Court – efficient disposition of the remaining issue in dispute in the case  

Judgment published date:

COSTS – Human rights proceedings – whether amendment prohibiting payments of costs except where proceedings instituted without reasonable cause applied where proceedings instituted prior to effective date of amendment – power to award costs generally – where statutory prohibition on proceedings in this Court – where extension of time application dismissed because of the statutory prohibition – costs claimed on scale – whether impecuniosity a basis not to award costs – whether proceedings instituted without reasonable cause – appropriate to award costs and disbursements as claimed.
WORDS AND PHRASES – “without reasonable cause”  

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION - Employer Nomination Scheme - respective applicants are employer and employee - grant of employee subclass 186 visa conditioned upon approval of employer nomination - whether Tribunal gave an unreasonably narrow interpretation of its discretion in sub-para 5.19(3)(f)(ii) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) - the Tribunal did not err - the applications must be dismissed 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION– Judicial review – applicant citizen of Sri Lanka - application for protection visa - fear of persecution as a Tamil Muslim –anti-Islamic violence following bombings of churches and hotels in period between hearing and Tribunal decision - whether Tribunal erred by failing to invite applicant to address – whether such anti-Islamic violence following bombings an ‘issue arising in relation to the decision under review’ - Tribunal erred in failing to extend further invitation to applicant to be heard - appeal allowed – writ of certiorari issued – writ of mandamus issued

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – protection visa – decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – whether the Tribunal failed to engage with the applicant’s claims – whether the Tribunal made an unreasonable finding – no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed – application for Ministerial intervention encouraged.

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – application for judicial review – decision of the AAT to not grant Protection (Subclass 866) Visa – whether the Tribunal failed to consider claims – whether the Tribunal made illogical findings – findings were open to the Tribunal – no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed

Judgment published date:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for non-publication and suppression orders – where application made in the context of an upcoming mediation – whether orders for a limited period are necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice – orders made

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – judicial review – decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal refusing protection visa – whether Tribunal considered country information - whether the Tribunal considered applicant’s evidence - no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed.

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – protection (subclass 866) visa application - Tribunal was not satisfied that there is a real chance that the applicant will face serious harm in the reasonably foreseeable future if he returns to Malaysia – applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations - no jurisdictional error is made out – application dismissed.

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – application for judicial review – decision of the AAT to not grant Protection (Subclass 866) Visa – whether the Tribunal failed to consider claims and evidence– whether there was a denial of procedural fairness– whether the Tribunal applied the wrong legal test- no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – application for judicial review – decision of the AAT to not grant Protection (Subclass 866) Visa – whether the Tribunal failed to consider claims and evidence– whether there was a denial of procedural fairness– findings were open to the Tribunal – merits-based arguments made - no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Administrative Appeals Tribunal – Protection (Subclass 866) visa – whether the Tribunal overlooked key evidence that substantiated the threats and harm the applicant had endured – whether the Tribunal incorrectly applied the legal definition of persecution under s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – grounds of judicial review have no merit – application dismissed with costs.

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – judicial review – decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal refusing to grant student visa – whether the Tribunal had proper consideration of the evidence – whether applicant satisfied cl 500.212 - no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed.

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION –cancellation of Temporary Work (Skilled) (Subclass 457) visa – whether Tribunal applied the wrong legal test – whether Tribunal failed to consider relevant material– whether Tribunal failed to afford procedural fairness – weight is a matter for the Tribunal – no jurisdictional error – application dismissed 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – application for judicial review – decision of the AAT to not grant Protection (Subclass 866) Visa – whether the Tribunal failed to consider claims – whether the Tribunal made illogical findings – findings were open to the Tribunal – no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed 

Judgment published date:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for non-publication and suppression orders – where application made in the context of an upcoming mediation – whether orders for a limited period are necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice – orders made

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION - judicial review – decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal cancelling visa on basis that applicant provided incorrect answers or information in visa application – whether Tribunal erred in its discretionary decision to cancel visa – no point of principle

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – application for judicial review – regional employer nomination (subclass 187) visa – refusal due to no approved nomination – application for review of registrar’s summary dismissal – extension of time –inadequate explanation for delay – no reasonably arguable error – futility of remittal – application dismissed

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – judicial review – decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal refusing protection visa – whether Tribunal considered country information - whether the Tribunal considered applicant’s evidence - no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed.   

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – protection visa – decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – whether the Tribunal failed to engage with the applicant’s claims – whether the Tribunal made an unreasonable finding – no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed – application for Ministerial intervention encouraged. 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – protection (subclass 866) visa application - Tribunal was not satisfied that there is a real chance that the applicant will face serious harm in the reasonably foreseeable future if he returns to Malaysia – applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations - no jurisdictional error is made out – application dismissed.   

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Administrative Appeals Tribunal – Protection (Subclass 866) visa – whether the Tribunal overlooked key evidence that substantiated the threats and harm the applicant had endured – whether the Tribunal incorrectly applied the legal definition of persecution under s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – grounds of judicial review have no merit –  application dismissed with costs. 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – judicial review – decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal refusing to grant student visa – whether the Tribunal had proper consideration of the evidence – whether applicant satisfied cl 500.212 - no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed. 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION –cancellation of Temporary Work (Skilled) (Subclass 457) visa – whether Tribunal applied the wrong legal test – whether Tribunal failed to consider relevant material– whether Tribunal failed to afford procedural fairness – weight is a matter for the Tribunal – no jurisdictional error – application dismissed 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – application for judicial review – decision of the AAT to not grant Protection (Subclass 866) Visa – whether the Tribunal failed to consider claims and evidence– whether there was a denial of procedural fairness– whether the Tribunal applied the wrong legal test- no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – application for judicial review – regional employer nomination (subclass 187) visa – refusal due to no approved nomination – application for review of registrar’s summary dismissal – extension of time –inadequate explanation for delay – no reasonably arguable error – futility of remittal – application dismissed 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION - judicial review – decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal cancelling visa on basis that applicant provided incorrect answers or information in visa application – whether Tribunal erred in its discretionary decision to cancel visa – no point of principle  

Judgment published date:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – CIVIL PENALTIES – Where in the liability judgment the court made declarations that the First Respondent had contravened a compliance notice and that the Second Respondent was involved in the contravention – Penalties imposed

INDUSTRIAL LAW – OTHER RELIEF – Whether appropriate to order the First Respondent to take the steps required of it in the compliance notice under s. 545(1) or 545(2)(d) of the FW Act – Where s. 545(2)(d) inserted into the FW Act after the date of the First Respondent’s failure to comply – Whether order able to be framed with precision so that the First Respondent knew what it had to do for compliance – Held appropriate to make a remedial order for the First Respondent to take the steps required of it in the Compliance Notice – Interest. 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Application for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Review of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“Tribunal”) decision – Allegation that the Tribunal’s decision was affected by jurisdictional error – Where the applicant alleges that the Tribunal did not consider all of the information before it – Where the applicant was found not to be a genuine temporary entrant – Application dismissed. 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Student visa – decision of the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal – whether the Tribunal failed to consider relevant information – whether the Tribunal’s decision was affected by bias – whether the Tribunal failed to afford the applicants procedural fairness – whether the Tribunal acted unreasonably – no jurisdictional error – application dismissed.

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – application for judicial review – decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – protection (subclass 866) visa – where the applicant claims the Tribunal’s decision was not capable of being reached on the material before it or on lawful grounds – no jurisdictional error established – applicant dismissed with costs. 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Application for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Review of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“Tribunal”) decision – Allegation that the Tribunal’s decision was affected by jurisdictional error – Impermissible merits review – Where the applicant was found not to be a genuine temporary entrant – Application dismissed. 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Student visa cancellation – decision of the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal – whether the Tribunal failed to afford the applicant procedural fairness – whether the Tribunal considered irrelevant evidence or information – whether the Tribunal failed to consider evidence or information before it – whether the Tribunal failed to give appropriate weight to certain factors – whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the degree of hardship the applicant might have faced if her visa remained cancelled – whether the Tribunal failed to make findings in relation to the applicant’s exceptional circumstances – whether the Tribunal’s findings were illogical, irrational or legally unreasonable – whether the conduct of the applicant’s representative amounted to a fraud on the Tribunal – no jurisdictional error – application dismissed.

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Business Innovation and Investment visa – decision of the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal – whether the interpretation services used at the Tribunal hearing were inadequate – whether the length of the Tribunal hearing was “too short” – whether the Tribunal failed to give the first applicant “clear particulars” – whether the Tribunal failed to give the first applicant an opportunity to provide further information in support of the review application – whether the Tribunal erred by affirming the delegate’s decision in relation to the second, third and fourth applicants – no jurisdictional error – application dismissed.