DUN16 v Minister for Immigration & Anor and DUO16 v Minister for Immigration & Anor

The Federal Circuit Court considered two applications for review concerning migration decisions. The applicants, DUN16 and DUO16, sought judicial review of decisions made by the Minister for Immigration. The core of the dispute revolved around the adequacy of the particulars provided in their applications for review, which the respondents argued were insufficient to allow the proceedings to properly commence.

The Court was required to determine whether it would be acting in a judicial capacity or merely performing a judicial function if it were to elicit particulars of the grounds for review from the applicants and record them for the applicants' benefit. This raised the question of the propriety of the Court assuming the role of an advocate for the applicants. Furthermore, the Court had to consider the consequences of non-compliance with procedural orders regarding the particularity of the grounds for review, and the responsibility of the respondent's legal representatives to address such issues proactively.

Justice Egan reasoned that requiring the Court to elicit and record particulars on behalf of an applicant would involve the Court stepping into the role of an advocate, which is inconsistent with its judicial function. The Court emphasised that it is the responsibility of the applicant to clearly articulate the grounds for their review. The Court noted that the absence of sufficient particulars had led to a waste of court time, resources, and costs, and that the respondent's legal team should have filed an interlocutory application to resolve these issues much earlier. Consequently, the Court ordered the applicants to file an amended application for review and provide detailed particulars of their grounds for review, adjourning the final hearing of the applications.