Plaintiff S297/2013 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

The plaintiff, identified as S297/2013, sought a writ of mandamus against the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, directing the Minister to consider and determine the plaintiff's protection visa application in accordance with the law. Following the court's order for the writ to issue, the Minister refused the plaintiff's application and certified compliance with the writ. The plaintiff contended that the Minister's decision was not made according to law and sought to plead to the return of the writ. The matter came before Chief Justice French.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the plaintiff was entitled to plead to the return of the writ of mandamus, specifically alleging that the Minister's decision, made in purported compliance with the writ, was not made according to law. This raised questions about the scope of pleading to a return and the court's power to review a decision made in response to a mandamus order.

Chief Justice French reasoned that a return to a writ of mandamus is not a pleading in the traditional sense, but rather a statement of the grounds upon which the respondent relies for their refusal to obey the writ. However, in circumstances where the respondent claims to have complied with the writ by making a decision, the applicant should be permitted to challenge the lawfulness of that decision. The Chief Justice held that the plaintiff should be permitted to file a pleading to the return, thereby allowing for a determination of whether the Minister's decision was indeed made according to law.

The Court ordered that the plaintiff file and serve a pleading to the return on or before 15 September 2014. The parties were also directed to file an agreed special case by 22 September 2014, which, subject to a Justice's order, could be referred to the Full Court for hearing and determination. Further directions regarding the filing of submissions were to be agreed upon, with costs reserved.