what is the legislation to back up this answer: (i) In Australia, the Federal Court and the Federal Circuit Court have jurisdiction to hear applications for judicial review of decisions made by the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC). This is under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (ADJR Act) and the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).

(ii) Mr. Wilton could potentially go directly to the High Court of Australia, but it is not common. The High Court usually only hears cases of significant public importance, or where there are serious issues of law involved. It is more likely that the case would first be heard in the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit Court, and then if necessary, an appeal could be made to the High Court. The mechanisms to get the case to the High Court would typically involve appealing the decision of the lower court on points of law.

(iii) The grounds available for commencing proceedings in a court would depend on the specifics of the case. However, under the ADJR Act, some possible grounds could include that the decision was not authorized by the AHRC Act, that the decision involved an error of law, that the decision was unreasonable, or that the decision was made in bad faith.

(iv) Mr. Wilton could potentially argue that the HRC delegate failed to consider the relevance of international agreements to which Australia is a signatory. This could be a ground for review if it can be shown that the delegate was required to consider these agreements under the AHRC Act or another relevant law.

(v) Whether Mr. Wilton is likely to succeed in advancing the argument referred to in (iv) would depend on the specifics of the case. It would be necessary to show not only that the delegate failed to consider the relevant international agreements, but also that this failure was material to the decision. This could be difficult to prove, particularly if the delegate considered other relevant factors. It would also depend on the interpretation of the relevant laws by the court.