GGD18 and Ors v Minister for Home Affairs and Anor (No.2)

In *GGD18 and Ors v Minister for Home Affairs and Anor (No.2)*, the applicants sought leave to cross-examine the respondent’s deponent concerning the Minister’s decision to refuse their applications for protection visas. The applicants contended that the deponent’s affidavit contained assertions that were not within his personal knowledge and that he had failed to provide adequate reasons for the refusal of the protection visa applications.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the applicants had demonstrated sufficient utility in permitting cross-examination of the respondent’s deponent. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the grounds advanced by the applicants for cross-examination were likely to elicit evidence that would assist in resolving the substantive issues in the proceeding, namely the lawfulness of the Minister’s decision to refuse the protection visa applications.

Judge Street considered the principles governing the grant of leave to cross-examine in such proceedings. His Honour noted that cross-examination is not a matter of right and that leave should only be granted where it is likely to be productive and assist the Court. Applying these principles, the Court found that the applicants had not established that cross-examination would be useful or necessary. The affidavit, in the Court’s view, contained statements of belief and opinion that were permissible in the context of administrative decision-making, and the applicants had not demonstrated that the deponent lacked a proper basis for those statements or that their cross-examination would yield evidence that would materially advance their case.

Consequently, the Court refused the applicants' request to cross-examine the respondent's deponent.