Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 20 AUGUST 2010

Objections To Competency

In Yao v Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2010] FCA 18, the Federal Court provided greater clarity on the role of notices of objection to competency under the Federal Court Rules (the Rules) in administrative law litigation. Importantly, Perram J found that, unlike applications made under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (the ADJR Act) or under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Migration Act), the rules governing appeals under s 44

AustraliaGovernment, Public Sector
Ashley Tsacalos
Ashley Tsacalos
Nick Beresford-Wylie
Nick Beresford-Wylie
Author LinkedIn connections

In Yao v Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2010] FCA 18, the Federal Court provided greater clarity on the role of notices of objection to competency under the Federal Court Rules (the Rules) in administrative law litigation. Importantly, Perram J found that, unlike applications made under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (the ADJR Act) or under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Migration Act), the rules governing appeals under s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (the AAT Act) make no provision for the filing of a notice of objection to competency. Thus, any such notice filed in an appeal under the AAT Act will be in itself incompetent.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from