Minister for Home Affairs & Ors v DMA18 as Litigation Guardian for DLZ18 & Anor; FRX17 as Litigation Representative for FRM17; Marie Theresa Arthur as Litigation Representative for BXD18; DJA18 as Litigation...

The applicants, the Minister for Home Affairs and others, sought special leave to appeal from a decision of the Full Federal Court. The respondents were various individuals represented by litigation guardians or representatives, including DMA18, DLZ18, FRX17, FRM17, Marie Theresa Arthur, BXD18, and DJA18. The core of the dispute concerned the lawfulness of decisions made by the Minister to refuse to grant visas to the respondents, and the subsequent decisions to refuse to revoke those visa cancellations. The proceedings before the High Court concerned the interpretation and application of provisions within the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and the *Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977* (Cth).

The High Court was required to determine, among other things, whether the Full Federal Court had erred in its interpretation of the relevant legislative provisions concerning the Minister's obligations and powers in relation to visa applications and cancellations. Specifically, the court considered the scope of judicial review available for decisions made under the *Migration Act*, and the extent to which the Minister's discretion could be fettered by considerations of public interest and the best interests of children. The proceedings also touched upon the proper application of the principles of administrative law, including the duty of procedural fairness.

The High Court ultimately granted special leave to appeal and, upon hearing the appeal, found that the Full Federal Court had erred in its interpretation of the *Migration Act*. The High Court held that the Full Federal Court had placed an impermissible fetter on the Minister's discretion by requiring the Minister to consider certain matters in a manner that was not mandated by the legislation. The Court clarified that the Minister's decision-making power was broad and that the statutory framework did not require the Minister to undertake a balancing exercise in the way the Full Federal Court had determined. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Full Federal Court.