Hoang v Minister [2026] FedCFamC2G 26
It was not disputed that a visa scheme responding to family violence was ‘beneficial legislation’, and to ‘be accorded a fair, large and liberal interpretation’13.
An earlier decision, informed by this principle, had permitted a psychologist to provide a ‘medical report’ under a legislative instrument. This was argued to be ‘plainly wrong’ for going too far14. Judge Gerrard (at [67]) said that ‘plainly wrong’ means not only ‘obviously wrong’. It also requires ‘conviction as to error’. Generally, a report from one in another profession will not satisfy the instrument. But this did not mean that psychologists could not address medical issues within their area of expertise.
This principle is from Episode 130 of interpretation NOW!
Footnotes:
13 NSWALC [2016] HCA 50 [32], Quarry Street [2025] HCA 32 [139].
14 Kaur [2020] FCCA 2975 [32] Judge Driver, cf ALRC Report [21.3].