BMI15 & Ors v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Ors

The High Court of Australia considered an application by the plaintiffs, BMI15 and another, seeking orders of certiorari and mandamus. The plaintiffs sought to quash decisions made by the Refugee Review Tribunal (now the Administrative Appeals Tribunal), the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, and the Federal Court of Australia. They also sought to compel the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to review a delegate's decision to refuse their applications for Protection (Class XA) and dependant visas. The Minister was the first defendant, and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Court of Australia were also listed as defendants.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the plaintiffs' application for an order to show cause was substantially out of time, and if so, whether an extension of time should be granted. This involved determining if the plaintiffs had established any arguable grounds for jurisdictional error in the prior decisions, particularly concerning the application of section 424A of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) by the Tribunal and the subsequent review by the Federal Court. The Court also had to consider whether the plaintiffs had provided sufficient particularisation of their claims to warrant further consideration.

The Court reasoned that the application was significantly out of time under both section 486A of the *Migration Act 1958* and rule 25.06 of the *High Court Rules 2004*. It found that the plaintiffs had not identified any basis upon which the Tribunal's decision could be considered arguably affected by jurisdictional error due to a failure to adhere to section 424A. The Court noted that the grounds advanced in the High Court application were unparticularised and lacked meaningful content, mirroring grounds previously abandoned or rejected in earlier proceedings before the Federal Circuit Court and the Federal Court. Consequently, the Court concluded that the application was hopeless and that granting an extension of time would be futile.

The High Court ordered that the application for an order to show cause be dismissed. The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the proceeding, and these costs were to be taxed and paid on an indemnity basis.