The Federal Court held that the AAT committed jurisdictional error by failing to consider a child's expressed views and a psychologist's report about the impact of separation, as required by Direction 90. The Court found that even where the Tribunal accepted adult evidence about the child's best interests and weighed it heavily in favour of revocation, it must separately consider the child's own views under paragraph 8.3(4)(f) and expert evidence about separation effects under paragraph 8.3(4)(d).
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.