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:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – general protections – adverse action – application for relief in relation to alleged contravention of general protections – whether employee had or exercised workplace right – prospective employee – whether inquiries constituted a “complaint” or “inquiry” for the purpose of s 341(1)(c)(ii) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – whether workplace right under s 341(1)(c)(ii) requires an instrumental source or entitlement – no instrumental or other source established –whether prospective employee engaged in “industrial activity” under s 347(b)(vii) – case insufficiently pleaded to establish industrial activity – existence and exercise of workplace right not established – application dismissed

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – protection (class XA) (subclass 866) visa – review of decision of the (then) Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) – where Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision – whether Tribunal failed to consider the applicant’s claims – Tribunal’s decision not attended by jurisdictional error – application for judicial review dismissed

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Temporary Protection (subclass 785) visa – Immigration Assessment Authority  –  whether the Applicant was denied procedural fairness –  whether the Authority was required to inform the applicant of ‘new issues’ – grounds of judicial review reveal no jurisdictional error – application dismissed  

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Application for judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirming a decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa – whether the Tribunal erred in its application of s 423A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – whether the Tribunal failed to consider a claim or an integer of a claim advanced by the applicant – whether the Tribunal failed to provide substantial justice to the applicant – no jurisdictional error – application dismissed. 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Application for judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirming a decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa – whether the Tribunal erred by failing to consider whether the applicant will face mental stress, depression and abuse from Malaysia’s unemployment and high living cost – whether the Tribunal failed to consider the applicant’s claim or an integer of his claim and made an unreasonable decision – where the applicant seeks a second chance to provide more details – no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed. 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Application for judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirming a decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa – whether the Tribunal denied the applicant procedural fairness by not giving him adequate time to provide further evidence – no jurisdictional error – application dismissed. 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Administrative Appeals Tribunal – Protection (Subclass 866) visa – whether the Tribunal failed to consider the applicant’s claims – grounds of judicial review have no merit – impermissible merits review – application dismissed with costs. 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Protection (Subclass 866) visa – where the applicants fears of harm did not meet the complementary protection obligations – where the applicant did not provide evidence in support of claims –  grounds of judicial review have no merit – application dismissed  

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Protection (Subclass 866) visa  – whether the Tribunal failed to actively and intellectual engage with claims – whether the applicant was denied procedural fairness – grounds of judicial review have no merit – application dismissed. 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Partner visa – refusal – review of Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“Tribunal”) decision – no matter of principle.  

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Temporary Work (Skilled) (subclass 457) visa – Administrative Review Tribunal – whether the Tribunal failed to disclose information in respect of a forensic facial composition analysis – whether the Tribunal failed to meet its obligations under ss 359A or 359AA of the Migration Act 1958 to provide clear particulars of any information to the applicant – where the grounds seek impermissible merits review –  where he Tribunal’s conclusions were not unreasonable, irrational or illogical – application dismissed. 

Judgment published date:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where the applicant failed to appear at a listing before the Court relating to his judicial review application – 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:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – FAIR WORK – retail industry – failure to comply with compliance notice – where default judgment was entered in respect of liability and respondent has continued to elect not to participate in the proceedings for relief – final relief granted on default. 

Judgment published date:

FAIR WORK – general protections court application lodged but not accepted for filing within proscribed time – where short and explained delay, no particular prejudice to the respondent and at least the basis of a claim articulated – extension of time granted. 

Judgment published date:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where the applicant failed to appear at a listing before the Court relating to his judicial review application – 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:

MIGRATION – student (class TU) (subclass (500) visa – where delegate refused to grant the applicants visas – review of decision of the (then) Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) – where Tribunal affirmed delegate’s decision – where first applicant failed to satisfy cl 500.211 of Sch 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) – where first applicant not enrolled in a registered course of study – Tribunal’s decision not attended by jurisdictional error – application for judicial review dismissed

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL – where the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant was the spouse of the sponsor – whether the Tribunal failed to consider each of the mandatory considerations in reg 1.15A of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) – whether the Tribunal overlooked evidence led in support of the applicant’s claims and failed to make findings about relevant matters – jurisdictional error established – writs issued 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – application for judicial review of decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal – Protection (Class XA) Visa – dismissal for non-appearance.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – interlocutory application for an adjournment on medical grounds – application opposed – medical report did not disclose that the applicant was suffering from any medical condition that required immediate medical treatment which prevented the applicant from attending the hearing – adjournment refused.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – interlocutory application for an adjournment on medical grounds – application opposed – medical report did not disclose that the applicant was suffering from any medical condition that required immediate medical treatment which prevented the applicant from attending the hearing – adjournment refused 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – judicial review – decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal – adjournment request by applicant refused by Tribunal - applicant did not attend scheduled hearing – Tribunal decided to proceed to decision on review – whether decisions of Tribunal refusing to adjourn hearing and proceeding with hearing in absence of applicant were legally unreasonable – application dismissed. 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – application for review of decision of registrar – registrar summarily dismissed application for judicial review of decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal – re-hearing of summary dismissal application – whether judicial review application has no reasonable prospects of success – application for review of registrar’s decision lodged 20 days late – no explanation for delay – extension of time refused. 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TRIBUNAL – visitor visa – genuine temporary entrant requirement – where the Tribunal incorrectly applied cl 600.611(3) of Sch 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) in considering whether the applicant intended to comply with the visa conditions – whether the error was material – whether the Tribunal erred by finding the applicant would not comply with condition 8503 – material error established by the Tribunal in misconstruing and incorrectly assessing the conditions to which the visa would be subject – writs issued. 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Regional Employer Nomination (Subclass 187) visa – Application for review of Registrar - Whether an extension of time should be granted – Whether reasonable prospects of successful prosecution of application for judicial review - Application dismissed. 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Protection visa – Application for review of Registrar - Whether application for judicial review has reasonable prospects of successful prosecution – Whether extension of time should be granted – Extension of time refused - Application for review dismissed. 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION - Protection (Class XA) (Subclass 866) visa – Application for judicial review – Non-appearance of applicant – Application dismissed pursuant to r13.06(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law Rules) 2021 (Cth). 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION — Application for judicial review of a decision of the (then) Immigration Assessment Authority  — whether the Authority misinterpreted or misapplied s.473DD of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in the manner contended — whether the Authority failed to consider relevant claims or evidence — whether the Authority’s decision was otherwise attended by legal unreasonableness — jurisdictional error established — application allowed with costs. 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Immigration Assessment Authority –  Safe Haven Enterprise (Class XE) (subclass 790) visa – whether the Authority was required to invite the applicant to provide information pursuant to s 473DC of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – whether the Authority must consider a sur place claim –  where the Authority is entitled to disagree with the delegate’s evaluation of the material –  whether a previous Federal Circuit Court decision identified the pseudonymised applicant –  grounds of judicial review have no merit –  application dismissed with costs. 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – (Subclass 790) Safe Haven Enterprise Visa (SHEV) – Application for an extension of time – judicial review application filed 171 days out of time – no requirement for the Tribunal to make findings as to the consequences of visa cancellation – where there is no merit in the proposed grounds of review – application refused 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – application for judicial review – regional employer nomination (subclass 187) visa – refusal due to lack of approved nomination – application for review of registrar’s summary dismissal – extension of time – procedural fairness – application dismissed. 

Judgment published date:

FAIR WORK – penalty hearing - first respondent is about to be placed in liquidation - second respondent has limited financial means - second respondent cooperated with the Court in the giving of oral evidence - $28,875 penalty imposed on the first respondent being 70% of the maximum penalty - $3,000 penalty imposed on the second being approximately 36% of the maximum penalty. 

Judgment published date:

FAIR WORK – penalty hearing - deliberate and intentional contravention by the respondent - reflects conduct of a kind that shows there is a very real need for subjective deterrence - maximum penalty of $41,250 imposed  

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION LAW – application for judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to not grant a protection visa – complementary protection criterion – assessment of the Applicant’s profile – common sense and realistic approach to reading the Tribunal’s Decision – Tribunal did not misapply real risk test – findings open to the Tribunal – application dismissed with costs 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION LAW – application for review of Registrar’s decision – where Registrar summarily dismissed the judicial review application – Tribunal found no jurisdiction to review the Delegate’s decision to refuse a protection visa as review application was filed 143 days out of time – no prospects of success – application dismissed with costs – Registrar’s decision affirmed 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Judicial review – protection visa – oral testimony and photographic evidence – inconsistencies and assessment of credibility – whether Tribunal failed to articulate the significance of an inconsistency when making an adverse credibility finding – whether Tribunal failed to consider an explanation for an inconsistency when making an adverse credibility finding – delay in making a protection visa application – where delay may be considered as part of Tribunal’s assessment that an applicant has a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ – jurisdictional error established.

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION - protection (class XA) visa application – Tribunal found the applicant’s claims lacked in overall credibility and did not accept that the applicant had any genuine fear of persecution for the reasons claimed - the applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations – no jurisdictional error established - application dismissed.   

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION– Application for review of Registrar’s decision to summarily dismiss judicial review application – Tribunal dismissed the application for merits review after non-appearance by the Applicant at the Tribunal hearing – Tribunal confirmed its dismissal decision after no reinstatement application received – Applicant nominated friend’s contact details – grounds of review have no prospects of success – Registrar’s decision affirmed – application dismissed with costs 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – application for judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirming a decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa – whether the Tribunal failed to take into account country information – whether the Tribunal erred by failing to address whether the Chinese minority are discriminated against in Malaysia – no jurisdictional error – application dismissed. 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – costs – application for costs to be awarded in a fixed amount after determination of the matter following a final hearing – fixed costs order made

Judgment published date:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where the applicant failed to comply with an order of the Court – application dismissed pursuant to r 13.05(1)(a) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) 

Judgment published date:

CONSUMER LAW – Practice and Procedure – Where the Applicant has made an application for orders under s. 123 of the Personal Property and Securities Act 2009 (Cth) – Where the Applicant sought an urgent interlocutory order on an ex parte basis to seize the vehicle pending a final hearing – Orders for seizure and storage of Vehicle – Undertaking as to damages. 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TRIBUNAL – protection visa – applicant self-represented – matter has a migration history and visa history – allegations of loan lenders with high profile gangsters – whether the Tribunal misconstrued significant harm – whether the Tribunal’s decision was legally unreasonable – jurisdictional error not established – application dismissed with costs

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – APPLICATION FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OF THE HEARING – where the applicant would like to be legally represented – where there is no certainty of legal representation – where the discretion to adjourn the hearing is not enlivened.

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TRIBUNAL – protection visa – applicant self-represented – whether the Tribunal failed to investigate the applicant’s claims – whether the Tribunal failed to consider allegation of domestic violence – whether the Tribunal’s decision was legally unreasonable – whether the Tribunal placed excessive weight on outdated country information – jurisdictional error not established – application dismissed with costs  

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TRIBUNAL – protection visa – applicant self-represented – whether Tribunal erred in considering the applicant’s claim to experience harm as a result of her sexual identity – whether the Tribunal’s decision was legally unreasonable – whether the Tribunal denied the applicant procedural fairness - jurisdictional error not established – application dismissed with costs.  

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – application for judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – whether the Tribunal failed to consider evidence that was before it – limitations of the Court’s role on judicial review – application dismissed. 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – application for judicial review of decision made by Administrative Appeals Tribunal – protection visa – whether the Tribunal should consider a claim that was not properly articulated – jurisdictional error established.

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Application for judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Assessment Authority (“IAA”) – whether the IAA applied the incorrect legal test in determining the applicant’s claims against the complementary protection criterion – application dismissed. 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – application for judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – whether the Tribunal considered evidence that was of central relevance to its decision – writs issued. 

Judgment published date:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – Practice and procedure – respondent company in administration – administrators do not consent to the matter proceeding – orders made providing for dismissal of the application if specified steps are not taken by a certain date

Judgment published date:

FAIR WORK – contravention of Fair Work Act 2009 – failure to comply with compliance notice – failure to comply with court orders - unpaid employee entitlements – pecuniary penalties – need for urgent law reform – need for jurisdiction under Corporations Act – need for provision for disqualification from managing corporate entities.  

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Application for judicial review – decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal – Partner visa – whether applicants given access to written material before the Tribunal – application of Australian Privacy Principle 6 – whether Tribunal misconstrued and misapplied provision concerning family violence exception to Partner visa criteria – where Tribunal did not wish to go behind the findings of the Magistrate – whether reasonable apprehension of bias – whether jurisdictional error – writs issued  

Judgment published date:

FAMILY LAW – Parenting – Where parents have highly conflictual relationship – Father’s ability to cooperate with Mother considered ‘problematic’ – Father highly critical of Mother’s parenting – Allegations of family violence – Where Father minimised family violence on affidavit and in the witness box – Aspects of family violence characterised by Father as not inappropriate in his culture – Child experts concerned about children’s involvement in and absorption of parental conflict – Orders made to reduce contact between parents – Orders made for spend time arrangements in relation to important religious and cultural events.

PROPERTY – De facto relationship – Limited assets available for division – Where Father alleges Mother has retained or dissipated matrimonial funds by investing in shares – Finding that Mother was “scammed” and lost the funds invested – Where Father obtained significant funds from his parents during the relationship and did not inform the Mother – Where Father paid same funds plus large sum claimed to be “interest” back to parents around the time of separation – Insufficient evidence to substantiate Father’s assertion that the funds were a “loan” – Funds added back to asset pool