Plaintiff M150 of 2013 by his Litigation Guardian Sister Brigid Marie Arthur v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and Anor; Plaintiff S297/2013 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and Anor

The applicants, Plaintiff M150 of 2013 and Plaintiff S297/2013, sought judicial review of decisions made by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection concerning their offshore processing. Plaintiff M150, a minor, was represented by his litigation guardian, Sister Brigid Marie Arthur. The core of the dispute concerned the lawfulness of the Minister's decisions to refuse to grant them a visa, specifically a Protection visa, and the subsequent administrative review processes. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Minister's decisions to refuse the grant of a Protection visa to each applicant were affected by jurisdictional error. This involved examining whether the Minister had failed to exercise a non-compellable, non-discretionary statutory power, or had exercised a power in a manner that was beyond the scope of the power conferred by the relevant legislation. The applicants contended that the Minister had failed to consider relevant considerations and had taken into account irrelevant considerations in making the decisions.

French CJ held that the Minister's decisions were not affected by jurisdictional error. His Honour reasoned that the statutory framework governing the assessment of Protection visa applications did not impose a duty on the Minister to consider the applicants' claims for protection in a manner that would give rise to a jurisdictional error if not satisfied. The Minister's power to refuse a visa, in the absence of a positive assessment of the criteria for grant, was a power that could be exercised without necessarily undertaking a full merits review of the applicant's claims. The relevant legislation did not compel the Minister to grant a visa in circumstances where the applicant did not satisfy the prescribed criteria, and the Minister's failure to grant a visa did not, in itself, constitute a failure to exercise a statutory power. The applications for judicial review were therefore dismissed.