The legislation passed the House of Representatives on 10 May 2005, the Senate on 7 November 2005, and received royal assent on 15 November 2005.
3.
Ruddock v Vadarlis (2001) 110 FCR 491, [216] (French J).
4.
Including expanding the power of Federal Courts to give summary judgment, conferring on the Federal Magistrates Court the same original jurisdiction as the High Court in migration legislation, and extending the operation of the Migration Act to ‘purported’ privative clause decisions.
5.
The section came into effect by proclamation on 1 December 2005.
6.
Law Council of Australia, Submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the Migration Litigation Reform Bill 2005, Parliament of Australia, Canberra, 6 April 2005 <http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/mig_litigation/> at 15 February 2006, 4.
7.
The Act provides for a different conception of ‘no reasonable prospect of success’ to that discussed by BarrettJ in Degiorgio v Dunn (No 2) (2005) 62 NSWLR 284, [28], and Hodgson JA in Lemoto v Able Technical Pty Limited [2005] NSWCA 153, [132]. Those cases considered the personal liability of legal practitioners under Part II, Division 5C of the Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW). Their Honours concluded that ‘without reasonable prospects of success’ equated to ‘so lacking in merit or substance as to be not fairly arguable’. See BeaumontNicholas, ‘What are “Reasonable Prospects of Success”?’ (2004) 78 (12) ALJ812.
8.
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125; Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62. Professor George Williams and Dr Ben Saul, Submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the Migration Litigation Reform Bill 2005, above n 6.
9.
Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, second reading speech, Migration Litigation Reform Bill 2005, 10 March 2005 (RuddockPhillip Attorney General).
National Pro Bono Resource Centre, Submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the Migration Litigation Reform Bill 2005, above n 6, 5.
15.
DworkinRonald, Taking Rights Seriously (1977) 105–30; DworkinRonald, A Matter of Principle (1985) 119–45; DworkinRonald, Law's Empire (1986) 239–54.
16.
Law Council of Australia, above n 6, 10.
17.
Williams and Saul, above n 8.
18.
(2005) 79 ALJR 609.
19.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the Migration Litigation Reform Bill 2005, above n 6, [9–10].
20.
Law Council of Australia, above n 6, 9.
21.
Australian Lawyers for Human Rights, Submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the Migration Litigation Reform Bill 2005, above n 6, 6.
22.
Order 62 Rule 9 of the Federal Court Rules and Rule 21.07 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules allow for costs orders to be made against legal practitioners.
23.
ALHR, above n 21, 6.
24.
Williams and Saul, above n 8.
25.
ALHR, above n 21, 1.
26.
Public Interest Law Clearing House (Vic) Inc and the Victorian Bar, Submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the Migration Litigation Reform Bill 2005, above n 6, 16.
27.
Ibid, 14.
28.
UNHCR, above n 19, [15].
29.
Section 7 of the Act inserts s 31A into the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, which expands the power of the Court to give summary judgment. This is not restricted to migration matters.
30.
PILCH and the Victorian Bar, above n 26, 13–14.
31.
(2003) 77 ALJR 1088.
32.
Ibid [21] (GummowJ).
33.
PILCH and the Victorian Bar, above n 26, 14.
34.
DarwinCharles Robert, The Voyage of the Beagle (1836), Chapter XXI.
35.
Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Provisions of the Migration Litigation Reform Bill 2005, Parliament of Australia, Canberra, May 2005, 3.57.
