Falzon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

The plaintiff, Mr Falzon, sought an extension of time to challenge the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection's decision to cancel his visa. Mr Falzon's visa was cancelled on 10 March 2016 under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) due to his criminal record. He was subsequently detained. Mr Falzon sought revocation of the cancellation on 15 March 2016, but the Minister refused this on 10 January 2017. Mr Falzon then commenced proceedings in the High Court on 14 February 2017, seeking declarations that section 501(3A) was invalid, quashing the cancellation and non-revocation decisions, and compelling his release. The proceedings were before the High Court.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether to grant Mr Falzon an extension of time to challenge the visa cancellation decision, and the procedural directions for the further conduct of the matter, including its referral to the Full Court. Mr Falzon contended that section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act* was invalid as it purportedly conferred judicial power on the Minister. The Court was required to determine if it was necessary in the interests of the administration of justice to grant the extension of time, and how the factual basis for the legal challenge should be presented to the Court.

The Court reasoned that granting the extension of time was in the interests of the administration of justice. This was because the delay in commencing proceedings was largely attributable to Mr Falzon pursuing his administrative review for revocation, and the Minister had taken a significant period to decide that matter. The Court found no prejudice to the defendant in granting the extension, as similar legal issues would arise in the challenge to the non-revocation decision, which was brought within time. The parties agreed that the matter should proceed to a hearing by the Full Court, and neither party contended for remittal to another court, as they did not anticipate any factual disputes. The Court ordered the extension of time, set out directions for filing an application book and submissions, and referred the application to a Full Court for hearing.