Plaintiff M23a & Anor v Minister for Home Affairs

The plaintiffs, M23a and another, sought an extension of time under s 486A(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) to commence proceedings for constitutional writs, specifically certiorari and mandamus. They aimed to quash a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs' decision of 31 July 2020 to refuse their applications for protection visas and to compel the Minister to reconsider those applications. The proceedings were heard in the High Court of Australia.

The High Court was required to determine whether to grant the plaintiffs an extension of time to seek constitutional writs and whether their application for such writs disclosed an arguable basis for relief. This involved assessing whether the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visas was affected by jurisdictional error, and whether the plaintiffs had demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting an enlargement of time for their application. The Court also considered whether it was appropriate to dismiss the application without a hearing, pursuant to r 25.09.1 of the *High Court Rules 2004* (Cth).

The Court dismissed the plaintiffs' applications, concluding that they did not disclose an arguable basis for relief and that granting an extension of time would be futile. The Court found that the delegate had considered the relevant country information, including Article 11(5) of the Constitution of Nepal, and had made findings that the second plaintiff was not stateless. The delegate's reasoning regarding the first plaintiff's relationship with the second plaintiff's father and the court orders for sole parental responsibility was found not to constitute jurisdictional error. The Court held that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances to warrant an enlargement of time.

Consequently, the High Court ordered the dismissal of the plaintiffs' application for an extension of time, their application for an enlargement of time to file an application seeking certiorari, and their application for a constitutional or other writ. The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the applications.