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
In Hong v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, handed down on 5 April 2019, a Full Court of the Federal Court considered when the Administrative Appeals Tribunal will fall into jurisdictional error by failing to consider a faintly advanced 'other reason' why a decision to cancel a visa should be revoked under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). … Continue reading Diverging views on the question of materiality in judicial review proceedings in the Federal Court
It is not every day that a criminal damage case from the Local Court at Newcastle finds its way into the High Court. But that is what happened in Grajewski v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW), a judgment handed down on 13 March 2019. Grajewski is an interesting case in that at first blush, the answer to … Continue reading What is your damage, Heather? Interpreting s 195(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Two judgments dealing with issues of Parliamentary privilege were handed down by Australian courts in November. The first of these, an interlocutory judgment in Hanson-Young v Leyonhjelm, was given by White J in the Federal Court. The second, Alford v Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, was handed down by Gordon J in the High Court. … Continue reading Two new judgments on Parliamentary privilege
In Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Egan, a judgment handed down on 8 October 2018, a full court of the Federal Court considered what considerations must be taken into account before a decision whether to revoke a person's Australian citizenship under s 34(2) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) can lawfully be made. The Court concluded … Continue reading External legal effects as mandatory considerations in administrative decision making
Jon Bayly's Law Blog 