Ranatora, Waisake Sasalu & Anor v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1998] FCA 392

Ranatora, Waisake Sasalu & Anor v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1998] FCA 392

The Tribunal erred in law because Subraju, which imposed a narrow view of "trade" linked to apprenticeship or equivalent formal training, formed a critical step in its reasoning. The Tribunal did not decide the matter on an alternative basis. The error was material because the Tribunal had not made sufficient findings about what Mr Ranatora did overseas, what training was relevant, or whether the claimed occupation involved a category or body of practical vocational skills of sufficient difficulty and generality. It could not be concluded that remittal would be futile.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 April 1998
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review of a Decision of the Immigration Review Tribunal Refusing a Class 816 Special (permanent) Entry Permit / Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment and Final Orders
Outcome
Application allowed; Tribunal decision set aside and matter remitted for reconsideration.
Legal Topics
['class 816 Special (permanent) Entry Permit' 'meaning of Trade' 'overseas Trade Qualification or Work Experience' 'error of Law' 'remittal to Differently Constituted Tribunal']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'judicial Review'] ['class 816 Special (permanent) Entry Permit' 'meaning of Trade' 'overseas Trade Qualification or Work Experience' 'error of Law' 'remittal to Differently Constituted Tribunal']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Judicial Review of a Decision of the Immigration Review Tribunal Refusing a Class 816 Special (permanent) Entry Permit / Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment and Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal erred in law in following Subraju on the meaning of the word "trade" in subclause 816.721(2)(b)(ii).' 'Whether, if the Tribunal followed Subraju, it nevertheless found against the applicants on an alternative basis.' 'Whether any error was material or whether remittal would be futile because only an adverse decision was open.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred in law because Subraju, which imposed a narrow view of "trade" linked to apprenticeship or equivalent formal training, formed a critical step in its reasoning. The Tribunal did not decide the matter on an alternative basis. The error was material because the Tribunal had not made sufficient findings about what Mr Ranatora did overseas, what training was relevant, or whether the claimed occupation involved a category or body of practical vocational skills of sufficient difficulty and generality. It could not be concluded that remittal would be futile.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; Tribunal decision set aside and matter remitted for reconsideration.

Orders

  • ["The Tribunal's decision be set aside." 'The matter be remitted to a Tribunal differently constituted for reconsideration in accordance with law.' "Respondent to pay the applicant's costs on a party/party basis but relevant to any legal advice that he may have had."]