Plaintiff M19A/2024 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

In the High Court, the parties were the First Appellant (identified as Plaintiff M19A/2024) and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. The dispute concerned the delegate of the Minister's decision to cancel the First Appellant's Protection (Class XA) (subclass 866) visa. The appellants sought to argue, for the first time in an amended notice of appeal, that the delegate committed jurisdictional error by giving weight to the First Appellant's non-response to a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC), despite the First Appellant having no legal obligation to respond.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the delegate's decision was affected by jurisdictional error, specifically by the erroneous consideration of the First Appellant's non-response to the NOICC. The Court was also required to consider whether reasons for a decision were necessary when orders were sought by consent and whether it was appropriate to make such orders.

The Court's reasoning proceeded on the basis of a concession by the Respondent that jurisdictional error had occurred. The parties provided an agreed document to the Court outlining the circumstances of the case. The Court ultimately allowed the appeal, setting aside the previous orders made by Justice Gordon. The Court issued a writ of certiorari to quash the delegate's decision to cancel the First Appellant's visa and declared that the visas held by the Second and Third Appellants were not cancelled. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Appellants' costs of the proceeding and the appeal.