Plaintiff M80/2016 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor

This matter concerned an application by Plaintiff M80/2016 to the High Court of Australia for orders in the nature of prohibition and certiorari. The plaintiff sought to prevent the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection from relying on a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which affirmed a delegate's refusal of the plaintiff's protection visa application. The plaintiff also sought to quash the Tribunal's decision and have the matter remitted for further determination. The plaintiff, a citizen of India, had remained in Australia unlawfully after his business visa expired and had lodged a protection visa application which was initially found invalid. A subsequent application was refused by the Minister's delegate, who found the plaintiff's claims to be unsubstantiated, after the plaintiff failed to attend an interview.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the plaintiff had an arguable basis for judicial review of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal's decision. This involved considering whether the Tribunal had erred in law by affirming the delegate's decision in the plaintiff's absence, given the plaintiff's repeated failures to attend hearings before the Tribunal and subsequent judicial review proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court and Federal Court. The plaintiff's stated ground for approaching the High Court was that his situation, and the decisions of the lower courts, had not been considered.

The High Court dismissed the plaintiff's application, finding it to be out of time and without an arguable basis. The Court noted that the plaintiff had been afforded multiple opportunities to attend hearings before the Tribunal, but had failed to do so. This failure to attend, and his subsequent failure to appear for judicial review in the Federal Circuit Court, led to the dismissal of his application for reinstatement by Judge Riethmuller. Justice Murphy of the Federal Court had also dismissed the plaintiff's applications for an extension of time and leave to appeal, agreeing that there was no reasonable prospect of success as the judicial review claim was not arguable. Consequently, the High Court concluded that granting an extension of time would be futile as the application for an order to show cause was bound to fail. The application was dismissed with costs ordered in favour of the Minister.