If you have been spending sleepless nights pondering the meaning of the expression in PIC 4020 "false or misleading in a material particular", then you will welcome knowing about a very recent (yesterday!) decision from the Full Court of the Federal Court.
The case is Singh v Minister for Immigration and border Protection (2019) FCAFC 22.
The decision confirmed the interpretation of the phrase that dates back to an earlier Full Court decision in Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs v Dela Cruz (1992) FCA 71; (1992) 34 FCR 348.
This recent decision holds that the term "material" should be read to mean: "of moment or of significance, not merely trivial or inconsequential" and further, that a statement is relevant for the purpose of PIC 4020 if it may be taken into account in making a decision under the Migration Act.
It is worthy of note that the opinion of Justice Reeves in this case was joined by the two other justices on the panel with 2 of the shortest concurrences in the history of the law:
Justice Jagot joined with Justice Reeves by stating: "I agree".
And Justice Derrington stated: "I also agree".
By the way, the applicant in these proceedings was represented by a law firm known as "Labour Pains Legal" - a Google search shows the firm to be employment law specialists.
I am not making this up, and I kid you not.
Who said that the law cannot be a source or laughter!
It is reassuring to know that words sometimes have their ordinary meaning even in the law!!!