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 – judicial review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – student visa – whether s 366C of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) was enlivened – no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed.  

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – application for judicial review of a decision by the Tribunal affirming a decision not to grant the first applicant a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa – whether the Tribunal ignored the first applicant’s medical condition and failed to recognise the first applicant as a person who needed medical treatment – whether the Tribunal failed to understand the first applicant’s serious depression – whether the Tribunal misunderstood the first applicant’s plan and reason why the first applicant did not wish to return to Nepal – whether the Tribunal was correct in finding that it did not have jurisdiction with respect to the second applicant – no jurisdictional error – application dismissed  

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – judicial review – refusal of student visa – application under s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Tribunal determined application on the basis of cl.500.211 (lack of enrolment in a course of study) rather than cl.500.212 (genuine temporary entrant) – whether failure to consider cl.500.211 constituted jurisdictional error – whether Tribunal failed to afford the Applicant procedural fairness 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Judicial review – Protection visa – Administrative Appeals Tribunal – Indonesia - Where the Tribunal was only required to assess the complementary protection criterion – Whether Tribunal assessed harm at present or in the reasonably foreseeable future – Where Tribunal used the words ‘Indonesia today’ – Unfair reading of Tribunal’s decision – application dismissed 

Judgment published date:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – restaurant industry – application for relief in relation to alleged contraventions of general protections and various minimum entitlement, regular payment and payslip obligations under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – application for default judgment– where Respondent has not entered an appearance nor participated in proceedings despite being afforded numerous opportunities – declarations made and partial relief ordered on default.  

Judgment published date:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – restaurant industry – application for relief in relation to alleged contraventions of general protections and various minimum entitlement, regular payment and payslip obligations under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – application for default judgment– where Respondent has not entered an appearance nor participated in proceedings despite being afforded numerous opportunities – declarations made and partial relief ordered on default.  

Judgment published date:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – restaurant industry – application for relief in relation to alleged contraventions of general protections and various minimum entitlement, regular payment and payslip obligations under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – application for default judgment– where Respondent has not entered an appearance nor participated in proceedings despite being afforded numerous opportunities – declarations made and partial relief ordered on default. 

Judgment published date:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – Where in the primary judgment the court made declarations that there were three contraventions of civil penalty provisions of the Fair Work Act as to the non-payment of notice, redundancy pay and accrued and unused annual leave – Where the contraventions resulted from a lack of care rather than a deliberately flouting of legal obligations – Where the First Respondent took reasonably prompt corrective action – An order for a penalty of 7.5% of the maximum penalty for each contravention was appropriate to meet the objectives of specific and general deterrence 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – judicial review – decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal refusing to grant protection visa – whether Tribunal failed to consider evidence – whether Tribunal failed to consider claim - no jurisdictional error – application dismissed  

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Application for extension of time - where Minister opposed extension from commencement of hearing until filing of written submissions more than 6 years later - Whether Immigration Assessment Authority erred by failing to consider evidence, failing to seek information from applicant and/or failing to invite applicant to interview

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – extension of time application to review a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – relevant considerations – extension of time refused.  

Judgment published date:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for transfer of proceedings to the Federal Court of Australia  

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Judicial Review – Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision – citizen of Sri Lanka – refusal of protection visa – whether failure to analyse or consider issue of significant harm – whether final decision contrary to the evidence – whether failure to properly evaluate the evidence – whether too much weight given to prior Australian criminal record – whether failure to consider relevant legislative provisions – whether decision contrary to expectations of the Australian community and lawmakers – whether error in findings as to information provided to support claims made – whether error made as to accessibility of video material provided by the applicant – whether error made as to availability of police complaint from Sri Lanka – whether error made in assessment of credibility – whether unreasonableness in relying on findings concerning false documents in earlier  protection visa application by the applicant – whether error in relation to assessment of criteria concerning serious crime – obligations concerning consideration of a valid application for protection and  assessment of refugee and complementary protection criteria before considering any other criteria - whether jurisdictional error.  

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Adjournment – adjournment of first Court hearing – unsuccessful in obtaining pro bono assistance – self-represented – applicant not appreciating the necessity to make submissions at hearing – no written submissions filed – no sensible or considered oral submissions  

WORDS AND PHRASES – “must”

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Protection visa – application for extension of time for judicial review of decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – where applicant had previously sought review of Tribunal’s decision – where applicant failed to disclose previous judicial review proceedings – failure to comply with s 486D – whether application incompetent – extension of time refused – application dismissed. 

Judgment published date:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where updated contact details were made known to Court by solicitor for first respondent – address for service can only be changed by a method provided for in Court Rules

MIGRATION – Whether Immigration Assessment Authority ignored relevant material or acted illogically or unreasonably in fact finding – adjournment application refused 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – protection visa –application for review of Immigration Assessment Authority decision – where no jurisdictional error is established – application dismissed with costs  

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Judicial review – decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal refusing to grant protection visas – whether Tribunal erred in failing to engage in further fact finding – whether Tribunal erred in rejecting applicants’ claim they faced real risk of sexual violence in Sri Lanka – whether Tribunal erred by not accepting DFAT risk assessment of violence against women in Sir Lanka – whether Tribunal denied applicant or witness procedural fairness by failing to raise with applicant or witness concern about independence of witness – 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:

BANKRUPTCY – administration of deceased bankrupt estate – substantial defrauding of now deceased bankrupt’s former employer by which property held on trust was obtained – property held on trust is not divisible amongst creditors – where Trustee and former employer sought orders that Trustee acting reasonably in sale and distribution of property in the estate and for Trustee to be paid remuneration – consideration of relevant factors in exercise of the discretion – orders made, substantially by consent, with creditors of the bankrupt estate granted liberty to apply.  

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION - Whether Authority misapplied real chance test – whether Authority erred by finding improvement in security situation equated to absence of real chance of harm – whether Authority failed to consider material question of fact

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.