Background
Two Nepalese citizens, married since 2008, were granted student visas to Australia in 2009. In 2014, they applied for protection visas. After the delegate refused their applications, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed that decision in 2017. The matter proceeded through the Federal Circuit Court, which was initially dismissed, but the Federal Court allowed an appeal in 2023 on procedural fairness grounds and remitted the case for reconsideration. After a second hearing in the Federal Circuit and Family Court in November 2023, the application was again dismissed, prompting this appeal.
The appellants’ protection visa claims rested partly on their involvement with a student union. A critical issue was whether Applicant One was a member of the student union in 2006 and whether he attended the relevant campus at that time. During the Tribunal hearing, there was a break in Applicant One’s oral evidence before Applicant Two gave her own evidence.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Colvin allowed the appeal and found that the Tribunal had made—or at minimum imputed—a finding of collusion between the appellants based on a break in the hearing proceedings. The Tribunal’s reasons stated that the break “provided an opportunity for the applicants to speak to each other” before Applicant Two gave evidence that aligned with Applicant One’s explanation about part-time study in 2006. The Court held that this reference was not merely a factual recital but rather supported an underlying concern about collusion or coordination in their evidence.
Critically, the Tribunal had not explicitly raised this collusion allegation with the appellants, nor had it afforded them an opportunity to respond. Applying the principle established in SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] HCA 63, the Court determined that procedural fairness required the Tribunal to put such a material issue—particularly one that bore on whether the appellants’ accounts were credible—to the parties for comment. The primary judge had erred in concluding that the Tribunal made no collusion finding.
The Court therefore allowed the appeal, quashed the Tribunal’s decision, and remitted the matter for reconsideration according to law. The Minister was ordered to pay the appellants’ costs fixed at $5,000, with liberty reserved as to costs of the proceedings before the primary judge.
Key Takeaways
- Procedural fairness requires that even implicit or imputed findings of collusion or coordination between parties must be raised with those parties, giving them an opportunity to respond.
- References in tribunal reasons to breaks in proceedings that suggest parties aligned their evidence, in the context of rejecting their credibility, constitute material factual findings warranting procedural fairness protections.
- The failure to accord procedural fairness is reversible error, even if other reasons support the Tribunal’s conclusion, because it is impossible to determine the extent to which the collusion concern infected the overall decision.
- In protection visa cases, credibility is often determinative; tribunal reasoning that relies on inferred coordination between applicants must be transparent and subjected to procedural fairness safeguards.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces a fundamental principle of administrative law: tribunals exercising adjudicative functions must accord natural justice to parties. Where a tribunal’s reasoning rests—even partly—on an imputation that parties coordinated their evidence or “got their heads together” during a break, that allegation must be explicit and the parties must have the opportunity to respond. The Court’s analysis makes clear that references to breaks in proceedings can be read as material factual findings, not mere narrative asides, especially when they appear in the context of credibility assessments.
For migration practitioners and applicants, the decision clarifies that protection visa decision-makers cannot rely on suspicions of collusion as a silent basis for rejecting evidence. The case also demonstrates the Federal Court’s willingness to intervene on procedural fairness grounds even after multiple layers of review, underscoring that process violations are not cured simply by remitter and re-hearing if the original defect in reasoning is not addressed.
✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.