STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – where the Autonomous Sanctions Act 2011 (Cth) and Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011 (Cth) impose restrictions on designated persons or entities – where it was common ground that regs 14 and 15 would impinge on the entrenched jurisdiction under s 75(v) of the Constitution – where the primary judge read down regs 14 and 15 as not applying to actions taken for the objective purpose of challenging the validity of decisions or actions taken under s 75(v) of the Constitution or s 39B(1) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) – whether primary judge erred – no error in primary judge’s conclusions – appeal dismissed CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – where primary judge held that regs 14 and 15 do not have applications that would subvert the exercise of jurisdiction under s 75(v) or s 39B(1) – where primary judge held that regs 14 and 15 when read down were not inconsistent with the principles established by Ch III of the Constitution – whether primary judge erred – no error in primary judge’s conclusions ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – judicial review of Instruments made by the Minister designating and declaring the appellant pursuant to reg 6(a) and (b) of the Regulations – where primary judge held that the Minister did not misapprehend her power when purporting to designate and declare the appellant – whether the primary judge erred – no error in primary judge’s conclusions demonstrated – Minister’s decision would nonetheless be valid by reason of item 5 of Sch 1 of the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment Act 2024 (Cth)
↧
Deripaska v Minister for Foreign Affairs [2025] FCAFC 36
↧
Kanyan v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 261
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for extension of time to appeal a decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia – where delegate of the Minister refused to grant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – whether the decision of the primary judge is attended by sufficient doubt to warrant a grant of leave to appeal – application dismissed
↧
↧
Oxford Insurance Brokers Pty Ltd v NTI Limited [2025] FCA 268
CORPORATIONS — return of an application seeking the grant of an ex parte interlocutory injunction restraining the first respondent from giving effect to a decision to terminate an agreement — whether prima facie case made out — whether balance of convenience favours the continuation of interim orders — where case is not sufficiently strong to warrant continuation of the injunction — injunction discharged
↧
Morgan v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 266
MIGRATION – application for extension of time to lodge application for judicial review of migration decision – extension of time granted – application for judicial review of decision of Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, acting personally, to cancel applicant’s visa pursuant to s 501BA(2) of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – whether Minister erred in dividing exercise of power in s 501BA into assessment of “national interest” considerations and “discretionary” considerations – where Minister’s decision made nine months after decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal – whether Minister failed to make decision within reasonable time – application for judicial review dismissed
↧
CSW17 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 259
MIGRATION — appeal from decision of the Federal Circuit Court and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) dismissing application for judicial review of decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority not to grant protection visa — where the Immigration Assessment Authority incorrectly applied criteria of s 473DD of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) — where the “new information” was unlikely to refer to the appellant — whether the primary judge’s reasons were affected by jurisdictional error — error not material — no jurisdictional error — appeal dismissed
↧
↧
EBP19 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 262
MIGRATION — appeal from decision of the Federal Circuit Court and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) dismissing application for judicial review of decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority not to grant protection visa — whether the primary judge erred in finding the Immigration Assessment Authority correctly applied criteria of s 473DD of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) — where the Tribunal applied a higher standard of satisfaction than required by s 473DD(b)(ii) — whether the “new information” could have resulted in a different decision had it been taken into account — error material — appeal allowed
↧
Po’oi v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 258
MIGRATION- application for judicial review of the exercise of the Minister’s personal power at s 501BA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to set aside a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and to cancel the applicant’s visa in the national interest-where contended that the Minister did not consider all materials in submission presented for his consideration-factual contention that annexures were omitted from the submission-whether the Minister impermissibly de facto delegated his power to the drafter of the submission-extent of consideration required by the Minister as a condition of the lawful exercise of the power-whether time taken by the Minister in considering the submission was adequate to permit active intellectual consideration-application dismissed with costs
↧
Ogawa v Australian Information Commissioner [2025] FCAFC 37
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — apprehended bias — appeal and applications to extend time and for leave to appeal in three separate matters-where applicant’s claims of apprehended bias were without merit and properly refused in each case — where relief claimed in one proceeding was in any event inutile and claim was correctly dismissed — appeal and applications for leave to appeal each to be dismissed with costs following determination whether the applicant should be the subject of a vexatious proceedings order PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Consideration of invoking procedure for making a vexatious proceedings order — where applicant has initiated many matters with little or no merit — where present matters devoid of merit and an abuse of process — orders made facilitating the hearing of whether a vexatious proceedings order should be made in respect of the applicant.
↧
ARE17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 263
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Interlocutory application for orders to join Insurance Australia Limited as the respondent and remove NTI Ltd as the respondent – Where incorrect entity was sued – Where applicant seeks to recover amount payable from insurer following judgment debt and costs order in FCCA proceedings – Application granted COSTS – Where outgoing respondent asserted it was the relevant insurer – Where applicant sought clarification of NTI Ltd’s role and which entity was the insurer – Where applicant foreshadowed a claim under s 601AG of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – Where outgoing respondent later said it was the appointed claims manager, not the relevant insurer – Where outgoing respondent failed to clarify that the insurance business had been transferred to Insurance Australia Limited – The parties pay their own costs of the proceedings to date – The outgoing respondent pay the applicant’s costs of and in relation to the interlocutory hearing
↧
↧
Jones (Administrator) v Realtek Semiconductor Corporation in the matter of Nuheara Limited (administrators appointed) (No 1) [2025] FCA 267
CORPORATIONS — urgent application for leave to dispose of property that is the subject to a security interest — application pursuant to s 442C Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) — whether arrangements have been made to protect adequately the interests of the secured party — where property in question is unlikely to realise comparable value — where the proposed sale of property is consistent with the objects of Part 5.3A Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) — leave granted
↧
Jones (Administrator) v Realtek Semiconductor Corporation in the matter of Nuheara Limited (administrators appointed) (No 2) [2025] FCA 276
CORPORATIONS — interlocutory application by plaintiff seeking amendments to orders previously granted under s 442C Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) — interlocutory application by plaintiff seeking orders approving entry into funding agreements — application pursuant to s 447A of the Act and s 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) — where amendments would give effect to orders previously granted in light of revised DoCA proposals — orders made CORPORATIONS — interlocutory application by defendant for an injunction — sought that plaintiff be restrained from disposing of property subject to a security interest — where leave had been granted to dispose of secured property pursuant to s 442C(2) of the Act — whether arrangements have been made to protect adequately the interests of the secured party in light of revised DOCA proposals — application dismissed PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application by third-party for leave to be heard — where no party objected — leave granted
↧
AIX20 v Director-General of Security [2025] FCAFC 38
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – public interest immunity claims – restricted counsel procedure – leave to appeal judgment upholding claim of public interest immunity – appellate standard of review for decisions upholding public interest immunity claims – where first respondent asserted public interest immunity of some discovered documents – where public interest in protection of national security weighed against disclosure of documents – where documents important to applicant’s substantive proceeding – whether balance of competing aspects of the public interest favoured disclosure of documents under a restricted counsel procedure, similar to that proposed in Al Rawi v Security Service [2011] UKSC 34; [2012] 1 AC 531 – Held: leave to appeal refused; no error identified in primary judge’s public interest immunity balancing exercise
↧
Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union v Brandon-Baker [2025] FCA 277
INDUSTRIAL LAW – whether notice requiring production of documents issued pursuant to s 712 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) is valid – whether notice sufficiently identifies the conduct being investigated – consideration of particularity of information required to be included in notice – held that notice included sufficient detail – application dismissed
↧
↧
HMB24 v Operator, National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse [2025] FCA 278
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – where the applicant applied to the respondent for redress under the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018 (Cth) – where the a delegate of the respondent determined not to approve the application – where a review determination affirmed the original determination - where the applicant applies for relief under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) – where the parties have agreed that the original determination and review determination are affected by legal and jurisdictional error – whether orders jointly promoted by the parties should be made – application allowed
↧
Kant v Principal Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia [2025] FCA 274
HIGH COURT AND FEDERAL COURT — judicial review – abuse of process – where the applicant lodged documents in the Federal Court of Australia seeking to commence three proceedings – where the Court refused the documents under r 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) on the basis that they were an abuse of the Court’s process – where the applicant brought judicial review proceedings under s 39B of the Judiciary Act challenging those decisions – Held: the Registrar’s decision was not affected by error – the proceedings represented an attempt to abuse the Court’s processes – proceeding permanently stayed as an abuse of process.
↧
Sayed v National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] FCAFC 40
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – appeal from decision of primary judge – whether Administrative Appeals Tribunal had jurisdiction to review alleged decision of the National Disability Insurance Agency on internal review of decision to approve statement of participant supports – whether appellant made request for internal review under s 100(2) of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth) – whether Agency made decision not to complete review or to confirm current supports – where Agency was conducting a review of the appellant’s plan on the CEO’s initiative under s 48(4) of the Act – appeal dismissed COSTS – whether primary judge erred in awarding costs on standard basis – where appellant was a litigant in person and impecunious – leave to amend notice of appeal refused
↧
Palmer v Shipton [2025] FCA 273
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – allegation of misfeasance in public office brought against chair of ASIC in relation to handling of complaints submitted by applicants – applications for strike out and summary judgment – where allegation made that the respondent “caused and/or directed” the underlying conduct – where respondent submitted that (i) the applicant failed to sufficiently identify the impugned conduct of the respondent; (ii) sought to attribute conduct and knowledge of other ASIC officers to the respondent; (iii) failed to plead material facts to establish mental elements of the tort –consideration of pleading requirements of the tort – application allowed
↧
↧
Scott (Trustee), in the matter of Stolyar (Bankrupt) v Stolyar (No 9) [2025] FCA 275
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to set aside or stay orders – whether failure to act in accordance with orders – construction of orders – application dismissed
↧
Perfect Day, Inc. v Commissioner of Patents [2025] FCA 270
PATENTS – appeal from decision of a delegate of the Commissioner of Patents in opposition proceedings – hearing de novo – claimed invention directed to providing a dairy substitute food composition that has the characteristics of cow’s milk – whether disclosure is clear enough and complete enough– whether claims lack support – whether specification is clear enough and complete enough to be performed by a person skilled in the art – application to amend specification
↧
JML Rose Pty Ltd v Jorgensen (No 2) [2025] FCA 282
BANKRUPTCY – where applicant applies for review of a sequestration order of a registrar made ex parte – whether court must conduct hearing de novo – whether s 52(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) is satisfied – whether court should look behind a default judgment which forms the basis of bankruptcy absent a bona fide allegation that no debt lies behind judgment – whether trustee has personal liability for debts incurred as trustee – application dismissed.
↧