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 – decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal refusing to grant protection visa – whether applicant denied procedural fairness – whether Tribunal’s reasoning process was illogical and unreasonable - no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed.  

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Application for remedies under s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in relation to a decision made by the Immigration Assessment Authority (Authority) affirming decision not to grant the applicant a Safe Haven Enterprise Visa – whether the Authority failed to properly assess the applicant’s claims of harm – whether the Authority otherwise properly considered the applicant’s claims and country information that was relevant to the applicant’s claims – application dismissed.  

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Administrative Appeals Tribunal –Protection visa – Whether the Tribunal’s adverse credibility findings on critical issues amounted to jurisdictional error – sole ground of judicial review upheld –Tribunal decision quashed – matter remitted to the Tribunal 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION - Protection (Class XA) (Subclass 866) visa – Application for judicial review – Fear of genital mutilation of sibling–- Claims of persecution or significant harm arising from failure to register applicant’s birth in Malaysia – Fear of discrimination and persecution due to gender dysphoria of sibling – Fear of forced disclosure of protection claims to authorities of receiving country – No jurisdictional error – Application dismissed. 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Protection (Class XA) (Subclass 866) visa – Application for judicial review – Fear of harm due to genital mutilation – Persecution or significant harm arising from failure to register applicant’s birth in receiving country – Fear of discrimination and persecution due to gender dysphoria of sibling – Fear of forced disclosure of protection claims to authorities of receiving country – No jurisdictional error – Application dismissed. 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – judicial review – decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal refusing to grant student visa – whether cl 500.212 of Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) was satisfied – 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 refusing student visa – whether Tribunal failed to give “genuine and realistic consideration” to applicant’s circumstances – whether Tribunal’s reasoning process was illogical and unreasonable - no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed. 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Application for review of a summary dismissal decision made by a Registrar – where an argument is available to the applicant that the Tribunal erroneously sent correspondence to a person believed to be the applicant’s authorised recipient – where that argument has reasonable prospects of success – KC v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 4 – orders made by the Registrar set aside by consent – matter listed for final hearing with associated procedural orders

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Regional Employer Nomination visa – decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal –application of the waiver provision in PIC 4020 – whether applicant purposely provided false and misleading information in contravention of PIC 4020(1) – compassionate or compelling circumstances – whether requirement to disclose UK spent convictions – where Tribunal failed to consider relevant evidence - jurisdictional error established – writs issued 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Return (Residence) (Class BB) visa – Whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal fell into jurisdictional error by failing to construe or misconstruing  cl 155.212(3A) of the Migration Regulations 1994(Cth) – Consideration of the “substantial ties” and “benefit to Australia” criteria – Application dismissed 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Judicial review – decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal refusing to grant protection visa – Tribunal not satisfied applicant was witness of truth and rejected most of applicant’s claims concerning past harm - no point of principle - application dismissed 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Subclass 457 visa – Whether as a result of failing to adjourn the review proceeding in the absence of a response to a s 359 letter the Administrative Appeals Tribunal fell into jurisdictional error – Whether the Tribunal unreasonably failed to enquire as to why there had been no response to a s 359 letter – Application dismissed 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – judicial review – decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal refusing to grant student visa – finding that applicant provided bogus document – finding that applicant did not satisfy genuine temporary entrant criterion - no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – judicial review – decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal refusing to grant protection visa – Tribunal made adverse credibility finding against applicant based on inconsistencies, vagueness and hesitancy in giving evidence – application claimed post-traumatic stress disorder affected his memory – whether Tribunal erred in considering applicant’s explanation - application dismissed 

Judgment published date:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – COSTS – Where the applicant discontinued the proceeding some months before a trial listed for a seven (7) day hearing – where the applicant failed to personally depose as to why he discontinued the proceeding – where substantial costs had been incurred by both the applicant and the respondent before the discontinuance of the proceeding – where a lawyer who provided an affidavit deposing on an information and belief basis what the applicant’s reasons for discontinuance were had failed to provide any explanation as to why the applicant had not personally deposed as to his reasons for discontinuing the proceeding – where the applicant’s lawyer had failed to depose as to why the applicant might have been unable to depose as to his reasons for discontinuing the proceeding – where no weight attached to the evidence of the applicant’s lawyer provided on an information and belief basis – where a costs order on a party/party basis was accordingly made in favour of the respondent. 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – application for review of decision made by Registrar to summarily dismiss judicial review application – where Tribunal found that it did not have jurisdiction to conduct review – where application for review made out of time – where no adequate explanation for delay – where there is no reasonable prospect of success of judicial review application – extension of time refused with costs

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 attended by legal unreasonableness – jurisdictional error not established – application dismissed with costs. 

Judgment published date:

HUMAN RIGHTS – DISCRIMINATION – where the applicant alleges that the first respondent discriminated against him unlawfully in the course of his employment with the second respondent, in breach of sections 9 and 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) – where the applicant claims that the second respondent is vicariously liable for those breaches – where the applicant also claims that the second respondent has independently breached section 9 of the Act by alleged underpayment of wages to the applicant – where the applicant seeks damages, declarations and an apology – consideration of whether the alleged conduct occurred and if so whether it was in breach of section 9 – consideration of whether any conduct was made otherwise than in private pursuant to section 18C of the Act – finding that the conduct did not breach sections 9 and 18C of the Act – application dismissed. 

Judgment published date:

HUMAN RIGHTS – DISCRIMINATION – where the applicant alleges that the first respondent discriminated against him unlawfully in the course of his employment with the second respondent, in breach of sections 9 and 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) – where the applicant claims that the second respondent is vicariously liable for those breaches – where the applicant also claims that the second respondent has independently breached section 9 of the Act by alleged underpayment of wages to the applicant – where the applicant seeks damages, declarations and an apology – consideration of whether the alleged conduct occurred and if so whether it was in breach of section 9 – consideration of whether any conduct was made otherwise than in private pursuant to section 18C of the Act – finding that the conduct did not breach sections 9 and 18C of the Act – application dismissed. 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – judicial review – partner visa – applicant alleged Tribunal was in error because it looked at whether the applicant was a member of the family unit of the primary person as at the time of the Tribunal’s decision whereas it should have considered that question as at the time of the application for the visa – no jurisdictional error disclosed as Tribunal needed to be satisfied of the relevant criteria at the time of the Tribunal decision on the material then before the Tribunal – application dismissed. 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Judicial review – Protection visa – Administrative Appeals Tribunal – Whether the Tribunal failed to consider claims - Whether the Tribunal erred in making a decision instead of dismissing the matter under s 426A – application dismissed.   

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – judicial review – protection visa – Tribunal accepted the applicant was a member of a particular social group being “persons being pursued by loan sharks” – Tribunal found on the country information the applicant would not be denied effective protection by the police from loan sharks – issue as to whether the Tribunal ignored or failed to have regard to relevant country information as to effective protection by the police from loan sharks – no jurisdictional error – application dismissed   

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION - Safe Haven Enterprise (Class XE) (Subclass 790) visa – Application for judicial review – Whether there was a real risk or a real chance of the applicant suffering significant harm – Whether Immigration Assessment Authority afforded the applicant procedural fairness – Application dismissed

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – student 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:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Fair Work – where earlier finding of contravention of s 340(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – where finding of liability reflected failure of the respondent employer to discharge onus under s 361(1) of the Fair Work Act- where proceeding listed separately for hearing on relief – where respondent sought to rely on evidence of “decision-maker” to make submissions about compensation and penalty – where “decision-maker” had not given evidence at the liability hearing – where applicant objects to parts of affidavit – whether respondent is estopped from relying on parts of evidence of “decision-maker” because they invite the Court to trespass on findings of fact or law made in the liability judgment – objections upheld in part 

Judgment published date:

CONSUMER LAW – where applicant seeks declaration and orders under s 123 of the Personal Property Securitys Act 2009 (Cth) and s 100 of the National Credit Code – where respondent has failed to meet vehicle loan repayments – where applicant seeks to enter property to seize vehicle – where respondent did not participate in the proceedings – where application for substituted service was granted previously – order made requiring the respondent to deliver vehicle within 7 days – order made that applicant can enter the respondent’s residential property or any other property he has apparent control over for the purposes of repossessing the vehicle – respondent to pay applicant’s costs in a fixed amount 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – application for judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – where the applicant did not attend a scheduled hearing – whether the Tribunal’s exercise of discretion under s 362B(1A)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) was legally unreasonable or otherwise affected by error – application dismissed 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – judicial review – decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal refusing to grant protection visa – whether Tribunal was required to make finding as to why militia group issued threat letter to applicant’s family - application dismissed 

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – Persecution – Review of Immigration Assessment Authority (“IAA”) decision – visa – protection visa – refusal.

 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Allegation that the IAA’s decision was affected by jurisdictional error by reason that it was unreasonable, illogical, irrational and against the weight of the evidence.

Judgment published date:

MIGRATION – judicial review – decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal refusing to grant partner visa – whether Tribunal failed to consider or have regard to text messages between applicant and sponsor in considering degree of companionship and emotional support they drew from each other – no jurisdictional error established – 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:

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:

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.