AZC20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

The High Court of Australia considered appeals by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (the Minister) against orders made by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute originated from proceedings commenced by a person (the appellant) in the Federal Court seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs to remove him to a regional processing country under s 198AD(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The primary judge had made orders declaring s 198AD(2) applied to the appellant and requiring the Secretary to perform this duty. However, the Minister subsequently exercised a power under s 198AE(1) of the Act to determine that the duty under s 198AD(2) did not apply to the appellant, rendering the primary judge's orders inoperative at the time the Full Court heard the appeals.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether a "matter" within the meaning of Chapter III of the Constitution existed at the time the Full Court made its orders determining the appeals. This question involved determining whether there was a justiciable controversy before the Full Court, and consequently, whether the Full Court possessed the constitutional jurisdiction to determine those appeals. The High Court also considered whether the Full Court retained jurisdiction to make orders concerning costs, even if the substantive issues were no longer live.

The High Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the orders of the Full Court. The majority concluded that, at the time the Full Court made its orders, the primary judge's substantive orders had no operative legal effect due to the Minister's subsequent exercise of power under s 198AE(1). Consequently, there was no longer a "matter" or justiciable controversy before the Full Court, meaning it lacked the constitutional jurisdiction to determine the appeals on their substantive merits. However, the Court noted that if costs had been the sole issue, a matter would have subsisted, allowing the Full Court to retain jurisdiction to make costs orders. The High Court ordered that the applications for leave to appeal and the appeals themselves be refused with costs.