By -

Key decisions

  • Stowers v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 174
  • Popeye Bido Pty Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) v Intermediate Capital Asia Pacific 2008 GP Limited (No 3) [2018] FCA 1597
  • Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (The BKH Contractors Case) (No 2) [2018] FCA 1563
  • Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Gava [2018] FCA 1480
  • Nyoni v Shire of Kellerberrin (No 10) [2018] FCA 1576
  • Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited v Ainsworth Game Technology Limited [2018] FCA 1511


Procedural fairness – whether practical, direct and non-misleading advice as to how material disclosed might be used by the decision-maker

In Stowers v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 174 (12 October 2018) the Full Court allowed the appeal and set aside the primary judge’s decision. The appellant is a citizen of New Zealand. His visa was mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) because he had a ‘substantial criminal record’ under s 501(7)(c) and consequently did not pass the ‘character test’ in s 501(6)(a).

The assistant minister decided not to revoke the visa cancellation decision. The primary judge dismissed a challenge to the assistant minister’s decision on the ground of procedural fairness. The sole ground of appeal to the Full Court was that the primary judge erred in failing to find that the assistant minister made a jurisdictional error by denying the appellant procedural fairness (at [34]).

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