It is axiomatic that an administrative decision maker must generally 'consider' the case put before it by a person whose interests are liable to be affected by its decision. As I noted in a previous post, this obligation can be considered to arise from the rules of procedural fairness, from the obligation to take into … Continue reading What does it mean for an administrative decision maker to ‘consider’ the case put before it?
On 16 August 2019, a Full Court of the Federal Court handed down judgment in Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Splendido. The case is important because it builds on existing Federal Court jurisprudence on what may variously be described as the 'irrationality' and 'no evidence' ground(s) of judicial review. The two judgments given … Continue reading Irrationality, uninformed speculation and lack of probative evidence: an important new judgment from the Federal Court
In a recent judgment in Twentyman v Secretary, Department of Social Services, Griffiths J refused an application for leave to appeal out of time from an earlier judgment of Wigney J dismissing the applicant's appeal on a question of law from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The judgment does not say anything new about … Continue reading The rule in Browne v Dunn in proceedings before an administrative review tribunal
A little while ago now, on 13 May 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down judgment in Franchise Tax Board of California v Hyatt. The judgment, comprising a majority opinion authored on behalf of the Court's conservative wing by Thomas J and a dissent authored on behalf of the liberal wing by Breyer J, … Continue reading Comparative constitutional law: the Supreme Court case about State sovereign immunity that’s really about something else entirely
Rudi Frugtniet has had a colourful career, during which he has been involved in administrative law proceedings against a range of State and federal regulatory bodies, including the former Victorian Board of Examiners, the Law Institute of Victoria, the Migration Agents Registration Authority and the Tax Practitioners Board. On 15 May 2019, the High Court gave judgment in … Continue reading What does it mean for a review tribunal to ‘stand in the shoes’ of a primary decision maker? The High Court’s judgment in Frugtniet v ASIC
Perhaps the two most widely commented-upon defamation cases in Australia during the last year have been Senator Sarah Hanson-Young's claim against Senator David Leyonhjelm and actor Geoffrey Rush's claim against the publishers of The Daily Telegraph. For most people, the fact that both of these claims were brought in the Federal Court (and not in a State … Continue reading How and why do people keep bringing defamation claims in the Federal Court? A brief discussion by Justice Lee of the Federal Court’s jurisdiction in tort claims
On 11 April 2019, a Full Court of the Federal Court handed down judgment in The Commonwealth v Snell. The judgment is perhaps most notable for the fact that it devotes 12 very interesting paragraphs to the question whether the common law doctrine of issue estoppel applies to proceedings in the Commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal, despite … Continue reading It’s gotta be little Lisa Simpson, Springfield’s answer to a question nobody asked: the Federal Court on issue estoppel in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal