Judicial review
When the ART or the Department makes a decision infected by legal error, the Federal Courts can set it aside. This is not a re-run of the facts — it is a review of the law, and it is where we act as litigators.
35-day window
An application for judicial review of a migration decision must generally be filed within 35 days of the decision. The court can extend time in limited cases — but never assume it will.
Urgent adviceErrors in law
A court will only intervene for ‘jurisdictional error’ — a legal defect that meant the decision-maker never validly exercised their power. The most common grounds we plead:
Procedural unfairness
The decision-maker failed to give you a fair hearing, or failed to put adverse information to you that was credible, relevant and significant to the outcome.
Legal irrationality
A finding so illogical or irrational that it was not open on the evidence — not merely a finding you disagree with, but one no reasonable decision-maker could reach.
Failure to consider claims
The Tribunal overlooked a clearly articulated claim or a significant piece of evidence squarely raised on the material before it.
Misapplied law
The Member applied the wrong legal test or misconstrued a provision of the Migration Act or Regulations — including the criteria your case actually had to meet.
Courts check executive power
Judicial review is how migration law stays honest. In EGH19 v Commonwealth [2026] HCA 7 (18 March 2026), the High Court struck down curfew and electronic-monitoring conditions imposed on Bridging R visas: punishment is exclusively a judicial function under Chapter III of the Constitution, and regulation-made conditions cannot cross that line. Decisions like this reshape what the Department can lawfully do — and they start with someone challenging a decision.
Injunctions & stays
Where removal from Australia is imminent, we can apply urgently for interlocutory relief so you remain in the country while the legality of the decision is determined. If removal is scheduled, contact us the same day.
Court framework
Federal Circuit & Family Court (Div 2)
The primary venue for migration judicial review. We draft the originating application and grounds identifying the specific jurisdictional errors, brief counsel where needed, and run the matter through to hearing. Filing fee: $4,180 (as at 3 July 2026; fee reductions may apply in cases of financial hardship).
Federal Court & High Court
Appeals from the FCFCOA, certain character matters under s 501, and constitutional questions — the pathway that produced EGH19. Appellate litigation is only recommended where the grounds are real; we advise frankly on prospects before any filing.
What a court can — and cannot — do
A successful judicial review quashes the decision and sends the matter back to be decided again according to law. The court cannot grant the visa itself, and no litigation outcome can be promised. If the error lies in the facts rather than the law, the right forum is usually an ART merits review.
Fees current as at 3 July 2026 (FY2026-27); the charge at lodgement date applies — confirm court fees at fcfcoa.gov.au. Professional fees are quoted in a written costs agreement.
Think the decision was legally wrong?
The clock started when the decision was made. Bring the decision record to a consultation and we will assess the grounds within your filing window.