By -

Key decisions

  • SZTGV v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCAFC 3
  • Prodduturi v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCAFC 5
  • Garford Pty Ltd v DYWIDAG Systems International Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 6
  • Hird v CEO Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority [2015] FCAFC 7
  • Taras Nominees Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2015] FCAFC 4


Tribunals – what is ‘information’ that may lead tribunal to refuse review

In SZTGV v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCAFC 3 (23 January 2015) a Full Court considered how the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) was to identify ‘information’ that could provide a reason for rejecting the review for ss 424A and 424AA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

The Court considered when answers to questions from the RRT constituted ‘information’ and whether there was any obligation on the RRT in asking questions concerning complex information. In one of the appeals the Court concluded the RRT had not made an unreasonable decision by failing to call for a mental health report on the applicant and had not acted contrary to the RRT ‘Guidelines on Vulnerable Persons’.

You've reached the end of this article preview

There's more to read! Subscribe to LSJ today to access the rest of our updates, articles and multimedia content.

Subscribe to LSJ

Already an LSJ subscriber or Law Society member? Sign in to read the rest of the article.

Sign in to read more