Fresh questions over the approach of a Sydney Federal Circuit Court judge have emerged after his ruling that a severely disabled man did not have the right to travel with his guide dog was overturned.

David Mulligan — who has cerebral palsy, severe mobility restrictions and is hearing- and sight-impaired — launched a claim against Virgin Australia earlier this year, challenging the airline's refusal to let him travel with his guide dog.

The matter came before Sydney Federal Circuit Court judge Alexander "Sandy" Street, who was appointed a judge by Federal Attorney-General George Brandis late last year and began on the bench this January.

The ABC this week broadcast exclusive reports which revealed Judge Street had found in favour of the Immigration Department in 252 of 254 cases put before him during the first half of this year, according to claims in a court document.

The success rate of migration applicants, largely asylum seekers, in Judge Street's court was 0.79 per cent, the documents filed in the Full Federal Court claim — whereas other judges found for the appellant in about 10 to 12 per cent of cases.

Got a confidential news tip? Email ABC Investigations at investigations@abc.net.au For more sensitive information: Text message using the Signal phone app +61 436 369 072 No system is 100 per cent secure, but the Signal app uses end-to-end encryption and can protect your identity. Please read the terms and conditions.

Now, Judge Street has been the subject of more strong criticism in the Full Federal Court's published reasons in the Mulligan matter which stands as a test case for disabled passengers seeking to fly with assistance dogs.

The Full Federal Court this week overturned Judge Street's ruling that Virgin Australia had the right to refuse to board Mr Mulligan's dog and ordered the airline pay $10,000 compensation.

"Cases like this leave a bad taste in our mouths," said Civil Liberties Australia chief executive Bill Rowlings, who questioned whether mentoring and monitoring of new judges and magistrates on all benches was adequate.

Judges describe speedy ruling as an 'error'

When Mr Mulligan's case came before Judge Street in January, a speedy decision was made.

After hearing the case, Judge Street ruled in favour of Virgin Australia, ruling that carrying Mr Mulligan's dog Willow would have "imposed an unjustifiable hardship on Virgin Australia", which disputed whether the dog could be classified as an assistance dog.

Judge Street's ruling was delivered ex tempore — on the spot — without retiring from the bench to consider reasons.

In overturning the decision, judges Flick, Reeves and Griffiths described Judge Street's decision to deliver the judgment so speedily as an error.

"It must necessarily be recognised that the attributes of different judges vary enormously and that appellate courts stand in a very different position to a trial court having a large volume of cases," the judges said.

"In a case such as the present, however, where the factual findings to be made and the legal conclusions to be reached were not easy of resolution, it was perhaps surprising that the primary judge decided to deliver ex tempore reasons rather than to first pause for reflection.

"Any experienced judge may have hesitated — and, perhaps, avoided error."

Judge to come under further scrutiny

The comments follow earlier criticism by judges in the Full Federal Court of Judge Street, who was in two recent cases found to have denied migration appellants procedural fairness.

In one of the cases an unrepresented Tamil asylum seeker was unable to present his case at a full hearing when Judge Street summarily dismissed the matter.

The Full Federal Court said in that case that "serious issues relating to the procedural fairness of proceedings must arise [when] ... an unrepresented applicant whose primary language is not English is called on, without notice, to mount arguments resisting the summary dismissal of his application".

Judge Street will come under further scrutiny later this month when a new appeal — by a Lebanese asylum seeker who also claims he was denied procedural fairness — is due to go before the Full Federal Court.

During that upcoming appeal, the court will be asked to examined the statistics that claim Judge Street found in favour of only 0.79 per cent of migration appellants during the first six months of this year.

The ABC has approached Senator Brandis for comment.

"It is not appropriate for the Attorney-General to comment on proceedings before the federal courts," a spokesman for Senator Brandis said.

Judge Street hails from the well-known Street legal family, which has produced three NSW chief justices.

His father, Sir Laurence Street, served as NSW chief justice between 1974 and 1988. His grandfather, Sir Kenneth Street, was also a NSW chief justice and his grandmother was pioneering human rights campaigner Jessie Street.