Judgments

MIGRATION LAW – where all of the grounds of review were unparticularised – where the applicant was in default at the time of the hearing before the Court - where it was impossible for the Court to properly adjudicate upon the applicant’s claims – where no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed. 

MIGRATION – Whether Tribunal applied proper statutory test – whether applicant denied procedural fairness.  

MIGRATION – Protection (subclass 866) visa – judicial review – application for the review of a Registrar's decision – out of time – extension of time granted –no real or genuine dispute that resolvable in an applicant’s favour – application dismissed. 

MIGRATION – application for judicial review – decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirming decision not to grant Protection (subclass 866) visa – whether Tribunal failed to consider evidence –whether the Tribunal failed in its duty – whether the Tribunal failed to afford procedural fairness – no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed. 

INDUSTRIAL LAW – application for relief for alleged contraventions of s 340(1), s 351(1), and s 352 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) – whether the applicant exercised any one of the 24 classes of workplace rights on any one of the 188 occasions on which the applicant alleges he had exercised such rights throughout his employment with the respondent – whether the applicant was disabled – whether the first respondent took adverse action against the applicant by threatening on three separate occasions to dismiss the applicant if the applicant were to lodge a workers compensation claim – whether the first respondent had taken adverse action by threatening certain consequences if the applicant kept on bringing up the need for third party HR assistance – whether, in contravention of s 340(1), s 351(1), and s 352 of the FW Act respectively, the first respondent terminated the applicant’s employment because the applicant had exercised workplace rights, was temporarily absent from work, or had a disability – whether the second respondent was a person involved within the meaning of s 550 of the FW Act in the first respondent’s alleged contraventions of s 340(1), s 351(1), and s 352 of the FW Act – application dismissed. 

FAIR WORK – Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – Compliance Notice – whether validly issued – reasonable belief of Fair Work Inspector. 

INDUSTRIAL LAW – General protections dismissal claim – Interlocutory Application – Where applicant made a general protections application involving dismissal to the Fair Work Commission – Where the Fair Work Commission did not issue a certificate pursuant to s 368(3)(a) Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – Where the applicant purported to file a general protections Court application in the absence of the certificate – Whether the Applicant’s dismissal-related pleadings should be struck out – the Court is jurisdictionally barred from considering any general protections dismissal claim – the Applicant’s dismissal-related pleadings are struck out. 

MIGRATION – costs – application for costs fixed in an amount above scale – fixed costs order made.

MIGRATION – judicial review – application to review decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) – where delegate of the Minister refused to grant the Applicant a visa – where the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate of the Minister – whether the Tribunal erred – HELD no error by the Tribunal – application dismissed with costs. 

MIGRATION – protection visa – judicial review of decision of Immigration Assessment authority not to grant visas – whether Authority’s decision or reasoning processes were irrational or illogical – whether potential change in diplomatic position relevant to assessment of future risk –  application dismissed.

CONSUMER LAW – Application for orders under s 101 of the National Credit Code to seize the vehicle – Costs.

HUMAN RIGHTS – practice and procedure – application for leave to file amended statement of claim – whether proposed amended statement of claim pleads reasonable causes of action that are not pleaded in the current statement of claim – leave to file an amended statement of claim refused subject to the particulars to one paragraph of the proposed amended statement of claim being treated as particulars to a paragraph of the current statement of claim.  

HUMAN RIGHTS – practice and procedure - application by the respondent to dismiss the proceeding on the ground that the applicant’s litigation guardian allegedly defaulted on multiple occasions and on the ground that the manner in which the litigation guardian has conducted the proceeding is an abuse of process of the court and vexatious – application for dismissal of the proceeding is dismissed.  

HUMAN RIGHTS – practice and procedure – where in oral submissions counsel for the respondent without having cross-examined the applicant’s legally unrepresented litigation guardian imputed that, in her dealings with the Court, the litigation guardian had been untruthful, had told lies, and had uttered falsehoods – whether the respondent gave fair notice of its intention to make such imputations against the litigation guardian – fair notice not given - where in any event the unrepresented litigation guardian was not cross-examined and, for that reason, she was not confronted with the imputations that were in fact made – whether in these circumstances the question of dishonesty was properly raised – question of dishonesty not properly raised.

MIGRATION – application for Protection (Class XA) (Subclass 866) visa – Administrative Appeals Tribunal not satisfied that applicant is a person to whom Australia owes protection obligations as outlined in ss 36(2)(a) or (aa) – 
delegate’s decision to refuse the grant of the visa affirmed – whether Tribunal’s decision was affected by jurisdictional error – no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed. 

MIGRATION – application for Student (Temporary) (Class TU) (Subclass 500) visa – summary dismissal of application dismissed by a registrar – application for judicial review – whether Administrative Appeals Tribunal erred in decision to refuse adjournment of hearing – applicant failed to satisfy cl 500.215 of the Regulations – no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed. 

MIGRATION – judicial review – decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal refusing to grant student visa –Tribunal found applicant provided bogus document to Department, applicant was aware document was bogus at time it was issued and there was element of fraud by applicant – whether Tribunal failed to properly consider applicant’s circumstances – whether Tribunal failed to properly consider power to waive PIC 4020(1) – application dismissed. 

MIGRATION – judicial review of decisions of Administrative Review Tribunal - request by applicant to Tribunal to make decision on papers without holding hearing - applicant then failed to appear at hearing – decision of Tribunal dismissing application for non-appearance – whether Tribunal erred in exercising procedural power to dismiss application for non-appearance rather than procedural power to make decision on papers without holding hearing – application dismissed.

MIGRATION – judicial review – decision of Tribunal dismissing application for non-appearance at hearing – applicant failed to exercise statutory remedy of applying to Tribunal for reinstatement – whether Court could refuse relief on discretionary grounds because applicant failed to exercise alternative statutory remedy.

MIGRATION – judicial review – where the Tribunal was legally unreasonable in proceeding to a decision, in circumstances where it had formed the view (and expressly stated) that the scientific information before it was probative, being that an SNP test yielded more accurate results than an autosomal DNA test, without first considering (a) whether or not to exercise its power under 
s 359 to invite the applicant to provide information, being the results of an SNP test; (b) whether or not to exercise its power under s 363(1)(b) to adjourn the review to enable the applicant to undertake an SNP test and provide the results to the Tribunal; or (c) if it had (impliedly) considered whether to exercise either of these powers and decided not to do so, its reasons lacked an evident and intelligible justification – legal unreasonableness established – application allowed.

MIGRATION – protection visa – decision of the Administrative Review Tribunal – application for review of a Registrar’s decision – no appearance by or on behalf of the applicant – application dismissed pursuant to r 22.04(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth). 

MIGRATION- Student visa – judicial review of decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal - whether telephone hearing was procedurally unfair - whether relevant considerations taken into account by Tribunal – whether decision legally unreasonable - whether bias demonstrated by Tribunal including by making a quick decision – application dismissed.  

MIGRATION: Student visa - decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal – whether the Tribunal correctly applied criterion requiring applicant to demonstrate English language proficiency – whether an adjournment should have been granted – application dismissed.  

MIGRATION – Whether Immigration Assessment Authority erred by not being satisfied the applicant would be at risk of serious harm – Whether assessment to consider new information properly made. 

MIGRATION – judicial review – decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) – Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) (subclass 602) visa application – whether the applicant was a genuine temporary entrant for the purposes of medical treatment– whether the Tribunal failed to have regard to medical documents before it – whether the Tribunal incorrectly had regard to applicant’s visa application history – no jurisdictional error on behalf of the Tribunal established – application dismissed. 

MIGRATION – extension of time – applicant filed 1 day out of time – Subclass 573 Higher Education Sector visa – where Administrative Appeal Tribunal affirmed the decision of the first respondent to cancel the applicant’s visa – whether the Tribunal failed to accord the applicant procedural fairness – where grounds largely unparticularised – found no unreasonableness, irrationality or illogicality in the Tribunal’s decision  – found grounds of substantive application not reasonably arguable – found it not in the interests of the administration of justice that there be an extension of time – application dismissed. 

MIGRATION – Immigration Assessment Authority – Safe Haven Enterprise visa – whether the Authority failed to consider a claim – whether the Authority was unreasonable or illogical – whether the Authority misunderstood or misapplied s.473DD(b)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958 regarding credible personal information.

MIGRATION – judicial review application – decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal refusing to grant Training (class GF) Training (subclass 407) visa – whether Tribunal provided detailed reasons of the genuine position assessment of the second training visa - no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed. 

MIGRATION – judicial review application – decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal refusing to grant Medical Treatment (Visitor) (class UB) Medical Treatment (subclass 602) visa – whether Tribunal afforded applicant procedural fairness – whether Tribunal had jurisdiction - no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed.   

CONSUMER LAW – Application for orders under s 123 of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) to seize the vehicle from the premises of a non-party – Costs.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to restrain legal practitioners from acting for the applicant – where a former solicitor from the applicant’s representative firm had previously worked for the respondents – whether the applicant has an unfair forensic advantage – interlocutory application dismissed. 

HUMAN RIGHTS - Disability discrimination – whether in terminating an employee’s employment the employer unlawfully discriminated against employee because of a disability the employer imputed to the employee – whether in terminating the employee’s employment to whom the employer imputed a disability the employer failed to make reasonable adjustments for the employee – unlawful discrimination not established. 

MIGRATION – extension of time – applicant filed 1 day out of time – Subclass 573 Higher Education Sector visa – where Administrative Appeal Tribunal affirmed the decision of the first respondent to cancel the applicant’s visa – whether the Tribunal failed to accord the applicant procedural fairness – where grounds largely unparticularised – found no unreasonableness, irrationality or illogicality in the Tribunal’s decision  – found grounds of substantive application not reasonably arguable – found it not in the interests of the administration of justice that there be an extension of time – application dismissed. 

MIGRATION – application for judicial review – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) (Subclass 500) visa – where Tribunal found no evidence before it that the applicant was enrolled in a course of study and concluded that cl 500.211 of sch 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) was not met – consideration of oral application for adjournment – adjournment request denied – found no jurisdictional error – application dismissed. 

MIGRATION – extension of time application – applicant filed 1 day out of time – Student (Temporary) (class TU) Student (subclass 500) visa – where Administrative Appeal Tribunal affirmed the decision of the first respondent to refuse to grant the applicant the visa – whether the applicant had complied with cl 500.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) – where applicant was not enrolled in a registered course of study at the relevant time – whether the Tribunal failed to consider the personal circumstances and financial hardship of the applicant – founds grounds not reasonably arguable – application dismissed. 

MIGRATION – application for review of Registrar’s decision – hearing de novo of first respondent’s application for summary judgment – where applicant applied for judicial review of decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal – where Registrar made judgment for the first respondent against the applicants and dismissed the substantive application – where review of Registrar’s decision filed seven days out of time – where Tribunal found it did not have jurisdiction to conduct review – well settled that the Tribunal has no power to extend the time period for the lodging of an application for review before it – where applicants sought judicial review of Delegate’s decision – found this Court has no jurisdiction to review a “primary decision” as defined in s 476(4)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – where the Tribunal correctly found that it did not have jurisdiction to conduct the review – application dismissed. 

MIGRATION LAW – whether the Tribunal conducted a proper hearing – whether the Tribunal failed to consider the applicant’s claims – whether the applicant was denied procedural fairness – no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed. 

MIGRATION – application for review of a Registrar’s decision – hearing de novo of applicant’s application for reinstatement of their substantive application for an extension of time in which to seek judicial review of decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – where applicant’s substantive application dismissed for non-appearance – where applicant’s reinstatement application dismissed by Registrar – applicant’s substantive application filed 455 days out of time – found grounds of substantive application not reasonably arguable – application dismissed. 

MIGRATION – application for judicial review – Safe Haven Enterprise (Subclass 790) visa) – where Immigration Assessment Authority affirmed the decision of the first respondent that the applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations – whether the Authority failed to take into account relevant considerations – where singular ground unparticularised – found no jurisdictional error – application dismissed. 

MIGRATION – judicial review application – decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal refusing to grant protection visa – whether Tribunal failed to give weight to evidence – whether Tribunal acted unreasonably - where non-disclosure certificate under s 438 was invalid - no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed.    

MIGRATION – application for review of Registrar’s decision – hearing de novo of applicant’s application for reinstatement of their substantive application for judicial review – where applicant’s substantive application dismissed for non-appearance at callover hearing – where applicant’s reinstatement application dismissed by Registrar – where applicant applied for judicial review of decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) (Subclass 500) visa – where Tribunal affirmed decision of first respondent that applicant did not meet cl 500.311 of sch 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) as applicant was not a “member of the family unit” of a person who held the visa – found no reasonable excuse for the applicant’s non-appearance at callover hearing – found grounds of substantive application had no reasonable prospects of success – application dismissed. 

INDUSTRIAL LAW – application for summary dismissal – where applicant alleges unlawful termination of employment in breach of s 772 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – where the applicant previously applied to the Fair Work Commission for an unfair dismissal remedy – where no certificate issued by the Fair Work Commission – whether the applicant is precluded from making an unlawful termination application by operation of s 723 – whether the Court has jurisdiction – found the Court has no jurisdiction – where parties entered into a deed of release – whether deed bar to proceeding – found claims under the originating application have no reasonable prospects of success – application dismissed. 

INDUSTRIAL LAW – where respondent showed no contrition or regret for her contravention of the provisions of the Fair Work Act – where general deterrence principles required to be applied in the handing down of pecuniary penalty orders – where appropriate orders made. 

MIGRATION – application for judicial review – safe haven enterprise (class XE) (subclass 790) visa – decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority (‘Authority’) – where the applicant claims that the Authority failed to consider relevant country information – where the applicant claims that the Authority did not consider the applicant’s submissions regarding the cyclical nature of violence in the applicant’s receiving state – consideration of whether the Authority considered relevant country information – consideration of whether the claim relating to the nature of the violence in the applicant’s receiving state was considered by the Authority to any extent necessary – finding that the Authority did not consider all relevant evidence – finding that the applicant’s claim regarding the nature of the violence ought to have been considered  – writs issued. 

MIGRATION – application for judicial review – decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Subclass 186) visa – where the applicant did not have an approved nomination – application dismissed with costs.

MIGRATION – application for extension of time – partner (temporary) (class UK) visa – where the applicant’s application to the Tribunal was made out of time– where the applicant claims that her former representative failed to notify her of the visa refusal – consideration of whether the Department complied with its obligations under section 66 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) by notifying the applicant via their nominated email address – no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed with costs. 

MIGRATION – application for judicial review of a decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority (“IAA”) – where the IAA declined to consider a sizable country information report due to a mistaken understanding that it was precluded from doing so by s 473DD of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – materiality – writs issued.

MIGRATION – protection visa – fear of harm on account of political opinion – whether Tribunal failed to consider claims and evidence – whether Tribunal properly applied the ‘real chance’ test in s 5J of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – whether Tribunal properly considered DFAT Country Information Report – whether Tribunal’s decision not to obtain evidence from the applicant’s witness gave rise to error – legal unreasonableness and the exercise of a discretionary power – jurisdictional error established – application allowed. 

MIGRATION – application for review of a registrar’s decision to dismiss the proceeding – protection visa – whether the applicant has reasonable prospects of successfully prosecuting the proceeding – where the Administrative Appeals Tribunal dismissed the application for non-appearance – application for review of a registrar’s decision dismissed – orders of the judicial registrar affirmed. 

MIGRATION – judicial review – decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal refusing to grant protection visa – no point of principle – application dismissed. 

MIGRATION – application for review of a Registrar’s decision – regional employer nomination visa – applicant did not have an approved nomination – finding that there are no reasonable prospects of success in the substantive application – application for review dismissed with costs. 

FAIR WORK – assessment of pecuniary penalties, costs and interest following default judgment – declaration of contravention of civil remedy provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made previously – respondent did not participate in proceedings – orders made. 

INDUSTRIAL LAW – FAIR WORK – parties by consent seek a declaration of the respondent’s contraventions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (‘FW Act’) – where the respondent concedes failure to comply with compliance notice issued under FW Act – parties jointly seek imposition of penalties within an agreed range – consideration of appropriate level of penalty to be imposed – declaration of contraventions and penalty orders made.