Aulakh & Ors v Minister for Immigration & Anor

The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Aulakh, sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which affirmed the refusal of their skilled visa application. The delegate of the Minister for Immigration had initially refused the visa, and the AAT subsequently conducted an interview with Mrs. Aulakh as part of its review process. The core of the dispute concerned the fairness of the interview and whether the AAT's ultimate decision was legally unreasonable based on the evidence presented.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the AAT had acted unfairly in its conduct of the interview with Mrs. Aulakh, specifically concerning the manner in which it put questions to her regarding her alleged previous statements about her work experience. The court was also required to determine whether the AAT's finding that Mrs. Aulakh did not work as a hairdresser, which underpinned the visa refusal, was legally unreasonable given the evidence before the Tribunal.

Justice Wilson found that the AAT's interview process was procedurally unfair. The Tribunal posed questions to Mrs. Aulakh prefaced with phrases such as "you are reported to have said," without providing her with the precise terms of the previous version of events she was alleged to have given. This prevented her from adequately responding to or clarifying the alleged inconsistencies. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision that Mrs. Aulakh did not work as a hairdresser was found to be legally unreasonable, as it was based on an unfair process and potentially flawed findings. The court ordered that constitutional writs be issued.