Bodruddaza v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

The High Court considered a constitutional challenge brought by Mr. Bodruddaza against the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs concerning the validity of a provision in the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) that purported to limit the time for applying to the High Court in its original jurisdiction. The dispute arose after a delegate of the Minister cancelled Mr. Bodruddaza's visa, and he sought relief from the High Court outside the time limit prescribed by s 486A of the Act.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether s 486A of the *Migration Act 1958* validly applied to Mr. Bodruddaza's application for constitutional relief, and if so, whether that section was itself constitutionally valid. This involved examining the scope of the Parliament's power under s 51(xxxix) of the Constitution to regulate procedures for seeking relief under s 75(v) of the Constitution, and the extent to which such regulation might be limited by the constitutional purposes of s 75(v) and its significance within the federal scheme. The Court also considered whether the decision to cancel Mr. Bodruddaza's visa constituted jurisdictional error, and whether the wording of Item 6A31 of the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth) was affected by the presumption that singular terms include the plural.

The Court reasoned that s 486A of the *Migration Act 1958* did apply to Mr. Bodruddaza's application for remedies in the High Court's original jurisdiction. However, the Court held that s 486A was invalid in its application to Mr. Bodruddaza's case, as it impermissibly infringed upon the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under s 75(v) of the Constitution. The Court found that while Parliament has the power to regulate the procedure for invoking s 75(v) jurisdiction, it cannot do so in a way that substantially impairs the constitutional purposes of that section, which include the availability of certain remedies against federal executive action. The Court also determined that the delegate had not made a jurisdictional error in assessing Mr. Bodruddaza's visa application.

The High Court answered the questions posed in the special case, finding that s 486A(1) applied to the plaintiff's application, but that s 486A was invalid in respect of that application. The Court also found no jurisdictional error by the delegate. The costs of the proceeding were ordered such that the defendant would bear the costs reasonably necessary for the determination of the validity of s 486A, while the plaintiff would bear the costs related to the jurisdictional error question.