WZASW v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2019] FCA 1401
The ground that the Tribunal failed to consider the 2011 Report does not establish jurisdictional error as the Tribunal was entitled to choose what material to consider and, in any event, the Tribunal had regard to submissions which referenced the Report. It was unnecessary for the Tribunal to mention every document. The rejection of further documents not put before the Tribunal was proper. No denial of natural justice or jurisdictional error was shown; thus, the appeal is dismissed.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 28 August 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment After Hearing of Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- ['judicial Review' 'country Information Assessment' 'natural Justice' 'jurisdictional Error']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment After Hearing of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the Tribunal failed to consider relevant country information (2011 Report) and thereby committed jurisdictional error' 'Whether the refusal to admit documents not before the Tribunal was in error' 'Whether there was a denial of natural justice or procedural fairness']
Ratio Decidendi
The ground that the Tribunal failed to consider the 2011 Report does not establish jurisdictional error as the Tribunal was entitled to choose what material to consider and, in any event, the Tribunal had regard to submissions which referenced the Report. It was unnecessary for the Tribunal to mention every document. The rejection of further documents not put before the Tribunal was proper. No denial of natural justice or jurisdictional error was shown; thus, the appeal is dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- ['Leave is granted for the appellant to rely on the ground of appeal raised in his notice of appeal.' 'The appeal is dismissed.' 'The appellant must pay the costs of the first respondent, fixed in the sum of $4,000.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment