A v Refugee Review Tribunal [1998] FCA 396

A v Refugee Review Tribunal [1998] FCA 396

The Tribunal did not deny natural justice as the substance of adverse country information was put to the applicant during the hearing; the Tribunal's findings on credibility and risk of persecution were open to it; there was no legal error in distinguishing subjective and well-founded fear; and no error of law occurred in the application of the real chance test or the standard of proof.

Parties
Applicant: A; First Respondent: Refugee Review Tribunal; Second Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 April 1998
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Final Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Refugee Status, Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Natural Justice, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Migration Law Administrative Law Refugee Status Judicial Review Procedural Fairness Natural Justice Wednesbury Unreasonableness

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Applicant

Refugee Review Tribunal

First Respondent

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Final Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Refugee Review Tribunal breached natural justice in failing to disclose country information bulletins before the hearing
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal's decision was unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal failed to apply the real chance test to the risk of persecution under the Refugee Convention

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not deny natural justice as the substance of adverse country information was put to the applicant during the hearing; the Tribunal's findings on credibility and risk of persecution were open to it; there was no legal error in distinguishing subjective and well-founded fear; and no error of law occurred in the application of the real chance test or the standard of proof.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application be dismissed.
  • The Applicant pay the Respondent's costs.