The majority held that the Tribunal's mischaracterisation of documentary evidence and flawed credibility reasoning constituted errors of fact, not jurisdictional error reviewable under s 476 of the Migration Act. [name withheld]'s dissent provides a detailed framework for when findings unsupported by probative material or logical grounds may constitute jurisdictional error, applying the reasonableness review standard from [name withheld]. The question of whether a duty to consider exercising the s 427(1)(d) power of inquiry arises in exceptional circumstances was left unresolved, with [name withheld] holding no such duty exists and [name withheld] suggesting it may arise where the need for inquiry is obvious and means are reasonably available.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.