In the realm of immigration law, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia plays a pivotal role in reviewing decisions made by Government bodies. However, the Court’s jurisdiction is not unlimited. It is confined to reviewing decisions for jurisdictional error, not simply because an applicant disagrees with the outcome. This distinction emphasises the critical need for a proper legal basis before initiating proceedings.

The Nature of Judicial Review

Judicial review is not an appeal. The Court cannot substitute its own decision for that of the original decision-maker. Instead, it examines whether the decision was made according to law. This includes assessing whether:

• The decision-maker exceeded their legal authority, i.e., acted outside of their powers
• Procedural fairness was denied
• Relevant considerations were ignored, or irrelevant ones were taken into account
• The decision was legally unreasonable or illogical

Without a proper basis, grounded in one or more of these jurisdictional errors, the application risks being summarily dismissed.

Statutory Framework and Case Law

The requirement for a proper basis is embedded in the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 and is reflected in key jurisprudence. In Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZMTA [2019] HCA 3, the High Court reaffirmed that jurisdictional error must be clearly identified and substantiated. Mere dissatisfaction with the merits of a decision does not suffice. The High Court held that a breach of procedural fairness is only a jurisdictional error if the breach is material.

Similarly, Plaintiff S10/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] HCA 31 emphasised that judicial review is concerned with legality, not correctness. These cases illustrate the Court’s insistence on precision and legal grounding.

Risks of Proceeding Without a Proper Basis

Initiating proceedings without a proper basis can have serious consequences:

• Dismissal of the application: Courts may strike out claims that fail to articulate a jurisdictional error.
• Adverse costs orders: Applicants may be ordered to pay the Respondent’s legal costs, which can be substantial.
• Delay and resource drain: Weak applications consume judicial resources and may delay justice for others with meritorious claims.

For legal practitioners, it also raises professional conduct issues under the Legal Profession Uniform Law, which requires that proceedings not be commenced without reasonable prospects of success.

Strategic Advocacy and Procedural Integrity

A well-founded application reflects strategic advocacy. It demonstrates:

• Respect for judicial process: By engaging only where legal error is evident.
• Clarity and precision: Through targeted submissions that reference statutory provisions and case law.
• Systemic awareness: Recognising that frivolous claims undermine the integrity of the review system.

For applicants, it ensures that their grievances are framed in a way the Court can meaningfully address. This means transforming emotional frustration into a legally coherent argument.

Conclusion

The Federal Circuit Court is a legal mechanism for correcting jurisdictional errors. Establishing a proper basis is foundational as it protects applicants from adverse outcomes, preserves judicial resources, and upholds the rule of law.