The Court refused an extension of time for a second judicial review application challenging a Tribunal decision, holding that the immunity of Tribunal members under s 60 of the AAT Act protects deliberative processes from disclosure and is not constitutionally invalid under Graham v Minister for Immigration, which was distinguished as concerning a 'radically different' provision (s 503A(2)). The Court held that descriptions of internal Tribunal legal advisory processes obtained through FOI did not establish sufficient merit for grounds alleging impermissible delegation or procedural fairness breaches, as the taking of legal advice by a presiding member does not of itself constitute de facto delegation, and opinions from legal officers are not 'information' triggering s 359A obligations. The strong public interest in finality of public law litigation weighed heavily against granting the extension where the applicant had already exhausted conventional review processes.
The full text is available to signed-in members.