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 – 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 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 –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 – 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 – 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 – judicial review – Administrative Appeals Tribunal dismissed application after applicant failed to appear at hearing – whether decision of Tribunal legally unreasonable – Tribunal received written notice of appointment of authorised recipient after inviting applicant to hearing – whether Tribunal’s failure to notify authorised recipient of hearing involved procedural unfairness.

COSTS – whether inability of applicant to meet costs order against him relevant to making or amount of order 

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 – 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 – 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.

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 – Judicial review – decision of Immigration Assessment Authority refusing to grant protection visa – no point of principle. 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Protection visa – decision of the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal – whether the Tribunal misapplied the relevant legal tests – whether the Tribunal failed to afford the applicant procedural fairness – whether the Tribunal erred by failing to seek further information or clarification in relation to critical aspects of the applicant’s protection claims – whether the conduct of any migration agent or representative assisting the applicant with completing of his visa application amounted to a fraud on the Tribunal – no jurisdictional error – application dismissed.

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Protection visa – decision of the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal – whether the Tribunal failed to consider a protection claim (or an integer of a claim) – whether the Tribunal failed to afford the applicant procedural fairness or failed to comply with the natural justice hearing rule – whether the Tribunal relied on incorrect or irrelevant information – whether the Tribunal failed to make necessary enquiries – no jurisdictional error – application dismissed.

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Protection visa – decision of the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal – whether the Tribunal failed to properly consider evidence before it – whether the interpretation service provided by the Tribunal was inadequate – whether the Tribunal failed to afford the applicant procedural fairness or failed to comply with the natural justice hearing rule – no jurisdictional error – application dismissed.

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Student visa – decision of the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal – whether the Tribunal acted reasonably when exercising its discretion to dismiss the applicant’s review application under s 362B of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – whether the Tribunal failed to consider the applicant’s medical evidence – whether the Tribunal failed to consider relevant considerations or circumstances – whether the Tribunal failed to afford the applicant procedural fairness – no jurisdictional error – application dismissed.

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION– Classes, Subclasses and streams of Visas – Where the Applicant applied for a visa in the Temporary Graduate Visa Subclass in the Graduate Work Stream of the Temporary Graduate Visa Subclass – Whether the Applicant should have been granted a visa in the Post-Study Work Stream of that Subclass.

MIGRATION– EXTENSION OF TIME – Where the delay in commencing the judicial review application was more than two years – Whether there was a satisfactory explanation for delay – Whether there was sufficient underlying merit to the application to extend time – Held there was insufficient merit to the underlying application to extend time – Application for an extension of time dismissed  

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Judicial review – decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal refusing to grant protection visa to applicant from Iran – Direction No 84 given by Minister under s 499 of Act – obligation of Tribunal pursuant to Direction No 84 to take into account DFAT country information assessment where relevant – Tribunal did not take into account or consider most recent DFAT country information assessment concerning Iran – whether information in DFAT assessment was relevant to Tribunal’s decision – whether any failure by Tribunal to comply with Direction No 84 and s 499 of Act was material – whether Tribunal’s decision could realistically have been different if Tribunal had considered DFAT assessment. 

Judgment published date:

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Death of applicant – abatement of proceeding.  

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Judicial Review – whether the period of notice for a rescheduled hearing given by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) was reasonable – whether the Tribunal erred in making a decision on the papers – whether there was fraud on the Tribunal by the applicant’s legal representative – no jurisdictional error – application dismissed.

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION– Whether the Tribunal failed to consider a claim said to have been advanced on behalf of the applicant – whether any claim was clearly articulated – whether the Tribunal ought to have raised an unarticulated claim on behalf of the applicant – no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed.  

Judgment published date:

INDUSTRIAL LAW - where there was evidence of a failure on the part of each respondent to comply with a duly issued compliance notice - where the respondents have failed to participate in the proceedings – where declarations and pecuniary penalty orders made accordingly. 
 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION LAW – application for judicial review – decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – Protection (subclass 866) visa – where applicant was granted a protection visa which was subsequently cancelled – where applicant had returned to Iraq on two occasions following grant of protection visa notwithstanding claimed fears of harm – consideration of whether Tribunal engaged in illogical or irrational reasoning – where it was open for the Tribunal to conclude that the applicant had provided incorrect information – consideration of whether Tribunal failed to comply with ss 424A and 424AA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – finding that applicant was put on notice of and did respond to the Tribunal’s concerns – consideration of whether Tribunal acted unreasonably in refusing two adjournment requests – finding that first refusal of adjournment not unreasonable and applicant has not established on balance of probabilities that second adjournment request was made – no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed with costs. 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION -  protection visa - application for judicial review of decision of Immigration Assessment Authority refusing visa – where applicant bore scars relating to alleged torture – where scars visually inspected and described by the delegate – where Authority relied on delegate’s description – whether there was an informational gap in the review – whether Authority should have invited applicant to interview – where Authority obtained recent country information not available to delegate – whether Authority failed to properly consider later information regarding monitoring of social media activities by Iranian authorities – whether Authority relied on outdated country information – no error found 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION –  protection visa – where applicant claims to fear harm due to conversion to Christianity – testing of applicant’s religious beliefs - whether the Immigration Assessment Authority erred by applying an arbitrary and unexplained standard of doctrinal knowledge in considering applicant’s commitment to Christianity – whether the Authority considered the particular circumstances of the applicant – whether the Authority erred in relying upon findings recorded by the delegate without interrogation of the source material  – whether the Authority made findings without a probative basis –  no jurisdictional error - application dismissed with costs  

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Where Tribunal failed to comply with section 359A obligation in relation to information which would have been a potential basis for affirming the decision, by ultimately finding on an alternative basis 
 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Review of Registrar decision made out of time – where applicant fails to seek extension of time, elect for oral hearing and make written submissions – review application is susceptible to dismissal as incompetent  
 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Application for an extension of time for judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – where substantive application lodged 9 days after expiry of the statutory timeframe – where substantive application is futile and lacks merit – extension of time ought not be granted – application refused.
 

Judgment published date:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – FAIR WORK – admitted contraventions by CFMMEU official who acted in an improper manner whilst exercising the right to enter private premises and by the CFMMEU through its involvement – consideration of relevant factors – common course of conduct principle applied – declaratory relief granted and pecuniary penalties with partial personal payment ordered.   

Judgment published date:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – Fair work – application for breaches of the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – employer failed to pay wages and commissions – termination of employment following provision on medical certificate – where the respondents have failed to take any steps in the proceedings – principles to be applied in undefended proceedings – assessment of damages – quantum of penalty to be imposed – to whom should the penalty imposed be paid – matters to be considered 
 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Application for judicial review – decision of Immigration Assessment Authority – citizen of Pakistan – Pashto ethnicity – whether failure to have regard to new information – date of publication of decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal in another matter – whether Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision made before decision of delegate – consistency in administrative decision-making – whether unreasonableness or illogicality or irrationality – whether material jurisdictional error

Judgment published date:

BANKRUPTCY – Creditor’s petition – No matter of principle

Judgment published date:

FAIR WORK – application for costs

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION -  judicial review – decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal – protection visa – whether Tribunal failed to consider claims or documents - no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed.

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – application for judicial review – matter listed for final hearing – no appearance by or on behalf of the applicant – application dismissed pursuant to r 13.06(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) 

Judgment published date:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs – Application for costs where the applicant was successful in the substantive proceeding – Where the criteria for costs ordered on an indemnity basis was not satisfied – Costs ordered in accordance with the Court’s scale

Judgment published date:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – FAIR WORK – on remittal from the Full Court of the Federal Court – lengthy procedural history – initial application filed in 2015 – Letter from company to prospective employees – Full Court found letter contained threats to take adverse action – whether the Letter was sent with an intention to prevent the exercise of workplace right – consideration of chief operating officer’s evidence both at the first trial and re-trial – witness found to be credible – finding that letter not sent for proscribed purpose – section 340 and 343 claims not made out

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – procedural issue – whether judgment can be delivered when court advised after judgment reserved the respondent was placed in administration – operation of section 440D of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – liberty to apply

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – application for judicial review – protection visa – review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – where the Tribunal made adverse credibility findings – whether the Tribunal’s findings were legally unreasonable – application dismissed

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – application for judicial review – medical treatment visa – review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal - whether the Tribunal acted unreasonably in relation to the request for an extension of time – whether the Tribunal’s decision was affected by apprehended bias – no jurisdictional error established - application dismissed.

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Extension of time application – Short delay and satisfactory explanation – no prospects of success – application dismissed

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Whether the Tribunal conducted a proper review – whether the decision of the Tribunal was attended with any irrationality or illogicality – no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed.

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Whether the Tribunal carried out a proper review – whether the Tribunal misdirected itself as to its consideration of the relevant criteria under PIC 4020 – no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed.

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – urgent interlocutory application to restrain Minister from removing applicant from Australia – whether serious question to be tried – whether damages an insufficient remedy – where balance of convenience lies – application dismissed.