Pinpoint · Judgment search

Degning v Minister for Home Affairs

[2018] FCA 1152

Federal Court of Australia · 7 August 2018 · Official judgment

Cited by 3 indexed judgments

All Overruled or disapproved 1 Cited 2

2019: 1 citing judgment 2020: 1 citing judgment, 1 negative 2021: 1 citing judgment 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026
citing judgments per year of which distinguished, doubted, not followed or overruled · line marks the decision

Sort: Oldest first Newest first Most cited

  1. Degning v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 67 Cited Federal Court of Australia (Full Court) · cited 29× · judgment
  2. Animals Australia Federation v Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment [2020] FCA 905 Overruled or disapproved Federal Court of Australia · judgment
  3. Nahi v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCA 1169 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 4× · judgment

Tree of authority

Built on

The authorities this case relies on, earliest first, and the authorities those relied on. Open a branch to go further back.

Built upon

Later cases citing this one, in order of decision, and the cases citing them in turn. The most cited are shown at each level.

Authorities cited (19)

Earliest first, with how this judgment treated each.

  1. Commissioner for Australian Capital Territory Revenue v Alphaone Pty Ltd (1994) 49 FCR 576 Cited cited 452×
  2. Commissioner for Australian Capital Territory Revenue v Alphaone Pty Ltd [1994] FCA 1074 Cited cited 57×
  3. City of Botany Bay Council v Minister of State for Transport and Regional Development (1996) 45 ALD 125 Cited cited 4×
  4. Botany Bay City Council v Minister of State for Transport and Regional Development [1996] FCA 1507 Cited cited 25×
  5. Botany Bay City Council & Ors v Minister of State for Transport & Regional Development & Ors [1996] FCA 394 Cited
  6. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj [2002] HCA 11 Cited cited 579×
  7. Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Lam [2003] HCA 6 Cited cited 918×
  8. Griffith University v Tang [2005] HCA 7 Cited cited 135×
  9. SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] HCA 63 Cited cited 914×
  10. SZBYR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] HCA 26 Cited cited 615×
  11. SZMTJ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2) [2009] FCA 486 Cited cited 17×
  12. SZNKO v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] FCA 297 Cited cited 25×
  13. Comcare v Post Logistics Australasia Pty Limited [2012] FCAFC 168 Cited cited 20×
  14. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v WZARH [2015] HCA 40 Cited cited 221×
  15. Maxwell v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 47 Cited cited 19×
  16. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Singh [2016] FCAFC 183 Cited cited 68×
  17. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZSSJ [2016] HCA 29 Cited cited 173×
  18. AZR16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1453 Cited cited 2×
  19. Muggeridge v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 200 Cited cited 96×
How the citator works

Citations are read from the text of each indexed judgment. A report citation written alongside a neutral citation, such as [2008] HCA 9; (2008) 234 CLR 50, teaches the citator that both name the same case, so later citations by either are counted together.

Treatment is read from the words in the sentence that cites the case: overruled or disapproved; not followed or declined to follow; distinguished or distinguishable; doubted; applied, followed or adopted. Anything else is cited. It is a guide to which judgments to read, not a judicial history: a judgment that discusses a case at length without one of those words is shown as citing it, and one mentioning several cases in a sentence may attach the word to all of them.

Only judgments in this index are counted, mostly the High Court, the Federal Court and New South Wales courts and tribunals since 2006. Earlier cases appear as authorities but their own authorities are unknown, so a tree ends there. Check a treatment by reading the passage before relying on it.

Judgment text is from the Open Australian Legal Corpus (Isaacus, CC BY 4.0) and the courts’ own websites. Each judgment links to its official version: read it before relying on anything here.