Ruddock and Ors v Taylor

The applicants, Ruddock and others, sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) concerning the respondent, Taylor. The dispute centred on the AAT's determination that certain information, which the applicants sought to have declared as contrary to the public interest under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), was not in fact contrary to the public interest. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The High Court was required to determine whether the AAT had erred in law in its interpretation and application of the provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) relating to the declaration of information as contrary to the public interest. Specifically, the court considered the scope of the Minister's power to make such declarations and the nature of the AAT's review of that power.

The High Court, in a joint judgment, held that the AAT had erred in law. The court reasoned that the AAT had misunderstood the nature of the power conferred by section 503A of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This section allows the Minister to declare that information is contrary to the public interest, and such a declaration is not subject to merits review by the AAT. The AAT's role was limited to reviewing the lawfulness of the Minister's decision, not to substitute its own judgment on whether the information was contrary to the public interest. The court emphasised that the AAT's function was to determine whether the Minister had acted within the scope of the power granted by the Act, not to re-exercise that power.

The High Court ordered that the AAT's decision be set aside and remitted to the AAT for redetermination according to law.