BDS17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

In the case of BDS17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, the primary issue before the court was whether the primary judge's decision should be set aside due to actual bias. This case involved an appeal against a decision of the Federal Circuit Court, where the Appellant, BDS17, contested the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection's decision to cancel their visa. The Appellant raised multiple grounds of appeal, including allegations of actual bias against the primary judge, and sought to adduce coincidence evidence under the Evidence Act.

The court was tasked with determining whether the primary judge was actually biased, whether the primary judge failed to properly consider the submissions, whether the Tribunal failed to make reasonable inquiries, and whether the Tribunal exhibited apprehended bias. Additionally, the court had to decide on the admissibility of coincidence evidence and the application for the court to be reconstituted.

The court rejected the allegation of actual bias against the primary judge, finding the evidence insufficient to establish bias. The court found merit in the argument that the primary judge failed to adequately explain the basis of his decision and did not properly consider the submissions. As such, the appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted to the Federal Circuit Court for reconsideration by a differently constituted court. The application for the court to be reconstituted was also rejected.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, and the primary judge's decision was set aside. The case was remitted to the Federal Circuit Court for reconsideration in accordance with law, with no order as to costs.