EDEN & KINGSTON

Eden and Kingston (the applicants) sought judicial review of a decision made by the respondent, the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. The applicants, who were asylum seekers, had their applications for a protection visa refused by the Minister. The dispute concerned the lawfulness of the Minister's decision, specifically whether it was affected by jurisdictional error. The matter came before Obradovic J in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Minister, in refusing the protection visa applications, had failed to afford the applicants procedural fairness. This involved determining whether the Minister had adequately considered all relevant information and whether the applicants had been given a sufficient opportunity to respond to any adverse information that might have influenced the decision. A further issue was whether the Minister's decision was affected by an error of law, specifically a failure to exercise the power conferred by the relevant legislation according to its terms.

Obradovic J found that the Minister's delegate had failed to provide the applicants with adequate notice of adverse information that was relied upon in the refusal decision. The delegate had failed to provide the applicants with a reasonable opportunity to respond to this information, thereby breaching the implied duty of procedural fairness. The Court held that this failure constituted a jurisdictional error, rendering the decision unlawful. The Court applied the principles established in cases concerning procedural fairness, emphasizing the importance of an applicant being informed of adverse material and having an opportunity to address it before a decision is made.

The Court made orders quashing the Minister's decision to refuse the protection visa applications and remitted the applications to the Minister for reconsideration according to law.