By -

Key decisions

  • Migration Agents Registration Authority v Frugtniet [2018] FCAFC 5
  • GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Limited (No 3) [2018] FCA 183
  • Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (Castlemaine Police Station Case) [2018] FCAFC 1


The penalty privilege – whether available in AAT proceedings

In Migration Agents Registration Authority v Frugtniet [2018] FCAFC 5 (30 January 2018), the Full Court considered whether the privilege against exposure to a penalty (‘penalty privilege’) was available to a respondent in his Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘AAT’) proceedings.

In an AAT review, the conference registrar made procedural directions including that Mr Frugtniet give the AAT and the Migration Agents Registration Authority (‘MARA’) witness statements, documents and a statement of facts, issues and contentions. A deputy president rejected Mr Frugtniet’s objection to these orders on the basis of the penalty privilege. The deputy president also affirmed the decision of the MARA to cancel Mr Frugtniet’s registration as a migration agent.

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