Plaintiff M19a/2024 & Ors v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

In the High Court of Australia, the plaintiffs, identified as M19C/2024, M19D/2024, and M19E/2024, represented by their litigation guardian M19B/2024, brought proceedings against the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. The core of the dispute concerned the validity of a notification process undertaken by the Minister, which the plaintiffs argued was defective and constituted a jurisdictional error. The matter came before Her Honour Justice Gordon.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the notification provided to the plaintiffs under section 119 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) was defective. This question involved a detailed examination of the interplay between section 119, section 120 (concerning disclosure of relevant information), and section 494A of the Act, as well as Regulation 2.55 of the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth). Specifically, the Court was asked to determine if the delegate who issued the notification had properly exercised their power to notify, considering the existence of a "prescribed way" under the regulations and the broader discretion afforded by section 494A.

The plaintiffs, through their counsel, submitted that the delegate misconceived their notification power by treating Regulation 2.55 as the sole prescribed method, failing to recognise that section 494A provided a more flexible approach to notification. They argued that the presence of section 494A rendered Regulation 2.55 not the exclusive prescribed way, and that the delegate's failure to consider the full scope of their discretion under section 494A amounted to a jurisdictional error. The plaintiffs contended that the notification was defective because the delegate did not reach the requisite state of satisfaction regarding the appropriate method of notification, instead relying narrowly on Regulation 2.55, which they argued was not the correct or only prescribed method in light of section 494A and other provisions of the Act. The Court noted that the resolution of the matter involved a question of construction at the intersection of these various legislative provisions.