NABM of 2001 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

The case between the National Australia Bank Nominees of 2001 (NABM) and the Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs involved a dispute regarding the Tribunal's decision about a Ukrainian national's application for protection in Australia. The Tribunal had rejected the applicant's claim that she would be persecuted in Ukraine due to her religion, stating that she could relocate within Ukraine where she would not face persecution. The applicant sought judicial review of the Tribunal's decision, arguing that the Tribunal's decision was unreasonable and should be set aside. The Minister for Immigration objected to the application on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction to review the Tribunal's decision, as the judicial review provisions in the Migration Act had been repealed.

The court had to determine whether it had jurisdiction to review the Tribunal's decision, considering the effect of the repealed judicial review provisions in the Migration Act and the provisions in the Judiciary Act that now govern judicial review of administrative decisions. The court also had to consider whether the Tribunal's decision was protected from judicial review by s 474(1) of the Migration Act, which provides that privative clause decisions are final and conclusive. The primary Judge found that the Tribunal's decision was a privative clause decision and that all the Hickman conditions were satisfied, which meant that the decision was protected from the applicant's challenge.

The court held that the Tribunal's decision was protected from the applicant's challenge by s 474(1) of the Migration Act, as it was a privative clause decision and all the Hickman conditions were satisfied. The court dismissed the applicant's appeal and ordered that she pay the Minister's costs. The court found that the applicant's argument that the Tribunal's decision was unreasonable was not sufficient to overcome the protection provided by s 474(1). The court also found that it did not have jurisdiction to review the Tribunal's decision under the repealed provisions of the Migration Act and that the application did not expressly invoke the jurisdiction conferred by s 39B(1) of the Judiciary Act.