Gounder v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, Mr Gounder, sought judicial review of a decision by the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) to refuse his partner visa application. The sponsorship for the visa had been withdrawn by his partner, and Mr Gounder claimed to be a victim of family violence. The MRT had previously obtained an independent expert opinion which concluded that Mr Gounder had not suffered relevant family violence. The matter was remitted to a differently constituted MRT, which again sought an independent expert opinion from the same company as the first. This second opinion also found that Mr Gounder had not suffered relevant family violence, leading to the refusal of his visa.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the MRT had failed to provide adequate reasons for its conclusion that it was not satisfied Mr Gounder had suffered relevant family violence, and whether the MRT's decision was affected by jurisdictional error. This alleged jurisdictional error arose from the MRT's decision to obtain a report from the same company of independent experts as the first Tribunal, and/or because the independent opinion relied upon by the first Tribunal was provided to the independent expert used by the present Tribunal without explanation of any perceived flaw in the first report. The court also considered whether the applicant could rely on an amended application filed late and without leave.

Justice Smith found that the MRT was bound by a legislative instrument to use the same company or provider of independent experts. Consequently, there was no jurisdictional error or procedural unfairness in the MRT's decision to obtain a report from that provider. The court also determined that the applicant could not rely on the amended application filed late and without leave.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.