REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE SKAROS
INTRODUCTION
1 This judgment concerns the conduct of the applicant's legal representative (the ALR) which involved the filing of submissions with the Court that contained citations of authorities and quotes alleged to be from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) (as it then was) which do not exist. The judgment also concerns the ALR's ex parte communication with the Court.
BACKGROUND
2 On 22 July 2020 an originating application was filed in this Court seeking judicial review of a decision of the Tribunal dated 18 June 2020. The applicant was represented in relation to the judicial review application by his legal representative (the ALR).
3 In compliance with orders made by a Registrar of this Court on 3 October 2024, the applicant filed an amended application on 23 October 2024. An outline of submissions was also filed on behalf of the applicant on 25 October 2024. Both documents contained citations to cases and alleged quotes from the Tribunal's decision which were non-existent.
4 On 11 November 2024, the Minister filed their outline of submissions with the Court. The Minister noted at [21] that:
The applicant's submissions … refer to "Murray v Luton [2001] FCA 1245", "Mackinlay v MIMA [2002] FCA 953", "Bavinton v MIMA [2017] FCA 712", "Gonzalez v MIBP [2018] FCA 211", "Seng v MIAC [2013] FCA 1279", "Kahawita v MIEA [1993] FCA 870", "MIAC v Thiyagarajah [2016] FCA 19", "Heath v MIMA [2001] FCA 700", "Mitsubishi Motors Australia Ltd v AAT [2004] FCA 1241", "MIMA v Ameer [2004] FCA 276", "Woods v MIMA [2001] FCA 294", "MIAC v Wu [2015] FCA 632", "Drummond v MIMA [2008] FCA 1774", "Walters v MIBP [2016] FCA 953", "Lao v MIMA [2002] FCA 1234", "Alfaro v MIBP [2016] FCA 1156" and "Wai v MIBP [2016] FCA 1157", but none of these decisions exist. They also in paras 1.2, 2.2, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, 6.1 and 6.2 provide alleged quotes from the Tribunal's decision which also do not exist.
5 On 19 November 2024, the ALR sent the Court an email, without copying in the other party or seeking their consent to send the correspondence, which attached an amended submission that had removed the citations to the non-existent case law and the purported quotes from the Tribunal's decision. Without alteration, the email stated the following:
