Shrestha v. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor
Ghimire v. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor
Acharya v. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor

Case No.

M141/2017, M142/2017 and M143/2017

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

27/04/2017 Federal Court of Australia (Bromberg, Bromwich & Charlesworth JJ)

[2017] FCAFC 69

Catchwords

Migration – Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 116(1)(a) – Visa cancellation – Where appellants granted Class TU subclass 573 Higher Education Sector visas based on enrolments in bachelor degree and diploma courses – Where appellants’ enrolment in diploma courses ceased after appellants failed subjects – Where appellants’ enrolment in bachelor degree courses subsequently cancelled – Where Administrative Appeals Tribunal cancelled appellants’ visas under s 116(1)(a) – Where majority of Federal Court found decision affected by jurisdictional error but refused relief on basis of futility – Whether Federal Court erred in exercising discretion not to issue writs of certiorari.

Short particulars

Documents

14/09/2017 Determination (SLA, Melbourne)

28/09/2017 Notices of appeal

05/10/2017 Submitting appearance (Second Respondent)

19/10/2017 Written submissions (Appellants)

19/10/2017 Chronology (Appellants)

09/11/2017 Written submissions (First Respondent)

23/11/2017 Reply

21/03/2018 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)

21/03/2018 Outline of oral argument (Appellants)

21/03/2018 Outline of oral argument (First Respondent)

15/08/2018 Judgment (Judgment summary)

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v. SZVFW & Ors

Case No.

S244/2017

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

2/03/2017 Federal Court of Australia (Griffiths J, Kerr J, Farrell J)

[2017] FCAFC 33

Catchwords

Migration – Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 426A(1) – Where first and second respondents applied for Protection (Class XA) visas – Where Department refused applications – Where respondents filed application for review by Refugee Review Tribunal – Where application form contained postal address, mobile phone number and email address – Where Tribunal by letter addressed to postal address invited first and second respondents to provide further information – Where first and second respondents did not respond – Where Tribunal by further letter invited first and second respondents to appear before it – Where first and second respondents did not attend – Where Tribunal exercised power under s 426A(1) to affirm decision without taking further action – Where Federal Circuit Court held Tribunal’s decision unreasonable – Where Full Court dismissed appeal – Whether Full Court erred by requiring Minister to establish House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 error – Whether Full Court erred by failing to find primary judge erred in concluding Tribunal’s decision unreasonable.

Short particulars

Documents

14/09/2017 Determination (SLA, Melbourne)

26/09/2017 Notice of appeal

19/10/2017 Written submissions (Appellant)

19/10/2017 Chronology (Appellant)

13/11/2017 Written submission (First and Second Respondents)

13/11/2017 Chronology (First and Second Respondents)

27/11/2017 Reply

13/03/2018 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)

13/03/2018 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)

13/03/2018 Outline of oral argument (First and Second Respondents)

08/08/2018 Judgment (Judgment Summary)

Govier v. The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q)

Case No.

B51/2017

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

10/02/2017 Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal) (Fraser JA, Gotterson JA, North J)

[2017] QCA 12

Catchwords

Negligence – Duty of care – Psychiatric injury – Where appellant employed by respondent – Where appellant attacked by co-worker – Where respondent informed appellant on day of attack that her conduct was under investigation – Where appellant too ill to attend investigative interviews – Where respondent asserted appellant refused to attend interviews and made preliminary findings against her – Where appellant’s employment subsequently terminated – Where appellant claimed damages for psychiatric injuries – Where trial judge held respondent owed no duty of care to appellant with respect to conduct of investigative process – Where Court of Appeal dismissed appeal – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding respondent did not owe appellant duty of care in respect of investigative process.

Short particulars

Documents

15/09/2017 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)

26/09/2017 Notice of appeal

20/10/2017 Written submissions (Appellant)

24/10/2017 Chronology (Appellant)

15/11/2017 Written submissions (Respondent)

29/11/2017 Repy

13/04/2018 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
Special leave revoked at hearing

13/04/2018 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)

13/04/2018 Outline of oral argument (Respondant)

14/06/2018 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)

YAU026 v. Republic of Nauru

Case No.

S160/2017

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

31/05/2017 Supreme Court of Nauru (Khan J)

[2017] NRSC 48

Catchwords

Whether the tribunal erred in failing to provide the appellant procedural fairness and natural justice in breach of s.22 and s.37 of the Act - on 23 December 2016 s.37 was repealed by s.24 of the Refugees Convention (Derivative Status and Other Measures) (Amendment) Act 2016 - retrospectively to 10 October 2012 - procedural fairness now has to be dealt with under the common law of Nauru.

Short particulars

Documents

14/06/2017 Notice of appeal

19/07/2017 Written submissions (Appellant)

19/07/2017 Chronology (Appellant)

09/08/2017 Written submissions (Respondent)

23/08/2017 Reply (Appellant)

02/11/2017 Consent

14/11/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) - Orders pronounced by consent

16/11/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) - VACATED

 

YAU027 v. Republic of Nauru

Case No.

S142/2017

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

5/05/2017 Supreme Court of Nauru (Khan J)

[2017] NRSC 29

Catchwords

Whether the Tribunal acted unreasonably and or irrationally - and failed to accord the appellant procedural fairness or natural justice. Appeal dismissed - held that the Tribunal accorded the appellant procedural fairness and natural justice

Short particulars

Documents

19/05/2017 Notice of appeal

07/08/2017 Written submissions (Appellant)

07/08/2017 Chronology (Appellant)

06/09/2017 Written submissions (Respondent)

22/09/2017 Reply (Appellant)

14/11/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) - Orders pronounced by consent

15/11/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) - VACATED

 

Page 148 of 278