Ranatora v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

The applicants, Mr and Mrs Ranatora, sought a review of a decision by the Immigration Review Tribunal that refused Mr Ranatora a Class 816 Special (Permanent) Entry Permit. The primary issue before the court was whether the Tribunal's decision was tainted by an error of law in its interpretation of the term "trade" as used in subclause 816.721(2)(b)(ii) of the then Migration (1993) Regulations. The court had to determine whether the Tribunal's reliance on the decision in Subraju v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs was correct and, if not, whether the error was material enough to warrant setting aside the Tribunal's decision.

The court found that the Tribunal's reliance on Subraju was misplaced as several subsequent cases had rejected or questioned the narrow interpretation of "trade" adopted by Moore J in Subraju. The court emphasised that "trade" should not be narrowly construed and that an occupation may be considered a trade even without formal training or apprenticeship. The court also noted that the Tribunal did not adequately consider the specific facts of Mr Ranatora's occupation and work experience, making it difficult to determine if the occupation met the criteria for a trade. Consequently, the court concluded that the Tribunal's error in law was material and set aside the Tribunal's decision. The matter was remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with law. The court further ordered the respondent to pay the applicants' costs on a party/party basis but relevant to any legal advice that Mr Ranatora may have had.