24 Nov 2020
The Magistrate did not breach the separation of powers or natural justice by indicating bail should be reconsidered and adjourning to hear counsel; that was a lawful exercise of judicial discretion under s7(5) of the Bail Act and did not amount to pre-determination. The judicial review is dismissed on the merits.
8 Apr 2020
Respondents who actively and directly opposed the interim judicial review application are entitled to costs for their expenditure; the Tribunal's decision-maker status does not preclude costs against the opposing parties; r14.15 permits multiple awards only for good reason and, on the facts (distinct interests, potential disruption, urgency and modest claims), two separate 2B awards were justified.
28 Feb 2013
Because s177 confers an absolute discretion and the immigration officer conducted a full interview, recorded the applicants' personal circumstances and relevant international obligations, and because the applicant did not establish predetermination, failure to take into account relevant considerations, or such unreasonableness that no reasonable immigration officer could have reached the decision, the High Court dismissed the judicial review application.
29 Nov 2006
Leave to cross-examine was granted only where it was necessary to resolve specific conflicts of evidence and test veracity: limited questioning permitted on (1) the denial of pre-determination, (2) what was said at meetings on 12 and 26 September 2006 where there is a straight conflict of accounts, and (3) whether the applicant's financial and budget position was taken into account; general cross-examination on the merits of the evaluation process was refused.
13 Nov 2006
The recusal applications were dismissed because no reasonable, objective apprehension of bias was established: the hearing sequence did not amount to predetermination and prior participation by judges in a leave decision (Udompun) on different facts and procedural grounds did not create an appearance of bias on the merits of the present appeal.
27 Apr 2006
No legitimate expectation existed that the spouse would automatically be re-interviewed; the Immigration Service Manual and international instruments require consideration of family interests not mandatory interviews; the decision-maker (Ms Bentley) properly considered the spouse's position on the basis of the prior interview and material before her, and there was no failure to take a relevant consideration into account, no material factual error, no predetermination and no Wednesbury unreasonableness; the judicial review application therefore fails.