Lam v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

This case concerned an application by Mr S.Y. Lam against the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. The dispute centred on the Minister's delegate's decision to refuse Mr Lam's visa application, which Mr Lam contended was made prematurely and without proper consideration of a pending review of a crucial certification. The matter came before the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the delegate acted unreasonably or denied procedural fairness by making a decision on Mr Lam's visa application without waiting for the outcome of a review by an external authority, particularly when the delegate was aware that such a review was underway and typically completed within 30 days. A secondary issue arose regarding Mr Lam's prior unsuccessful attempt to seek judicial review in the Federal Circuit Court, specifically concerning when he first became aware that this court lacked jurisdiction to hear his matter.

The Court heard submissions on whether the delegate had an obligation to defer the decision, considering the information available, including a letter indicating a review was in progress. The Minister's representative argued that while the delegate had an obligation to consider a valid application, there was no express power to adjourn, and crucially, the delegate was unaware of the specific grounds or prospects of success of the review. It was submitted that the possibility of merits review, even if not a complete justification, was a relevant factor permitting the delegate to proceed. Mr Lam, appearing in person, argued that a reasonable delegate should have protected his interests by inquiring further about the review or deferring the decision, drawing a comparison to the more flexible approach of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in similar circumstances. The Court also considered the timing of Mr Lam's awareness of the Federal Circuit Court's jurisdictional limitations, with the Minister's counsel presenting evidence of a formal response filed in 2016 indicating the lack of jurisdiction.

The High Court reserved its decision, indicating it would consider further affidavits to be filed by both parties regarding the jurisdictional issue before delivering its judgment.