Applicant S184-2002, Ex parte Re MIMIA

The applicant, S184-2002, sought an order of prohibition against the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (MIMIA) and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. The dispute concerned the lawfulness of decisions made by the Minister and the Immigration Review Tribunal (IRT) regarding the applicant's claim for protection as a refugee. The matter came before the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Minister's delegate had failed to afford the applicant procedural fairness in the assessment of her protection visa application. Specifically, the court considered whether the delegate was obliged to inform the applicant of adverse information that was to be relied upon in rejecting her claim and to provide her with an opportunity to respond to that information. A further issue was whether the Immigration Review Tribunal had erred in law by affirming the delegate's decision without itself affording procedural fairness.

The High Court, comprising Gummow and Kirby JJ, determined that the delegate's failure to disclose the adverse information and provide an opportunity to respond constituted a breach of the rules of procedural fairness. Their Honours applied the principles established in cases such as *Kiao* and *Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh*, which mandate that a decision-maker must provide a person with notice of adverse information that is likely to be determinative of their case and allow them a reasonable opportunity to address it. The court found that the IRT, by affirming the delegate's decision without rectifying this procedural failing, had also erred in law.

Consequently, the High Court made orders absolute for prohibition, quashing the decision of the Immigration Review Tribunal and directing that the matter be remitted to the Tribunal for redetermination according to law.