Setka v The Honourable Tony Abbott MP & Anor

The applicants, Setka and others, sought judicial review of decisions made by the respondents, the Honourable Tony Abbott MP and the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. The dispute concerned the validity of certain decisions made under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and related regulations, specifically concerning the refusal to grant visas or the cancellation of existing visas. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the decisions of the respondents were vitiated by jurisdictional error, and whether the applicants had established grounds for relief under the *Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977* (Cth) or the Court's constitutional supervisory jurisdiction. This involved examining the proper construction of relevant provisions of the *Migration Act* and the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth), and whether the decision-makers had failed to take into account relevant considerations or had taken into account irrelevant considerations.

The Court's reasoning focused on the principles of administrative law, particularly the concept of jurisdictional error. It was held that for a decision to be affected by jurisdictional error, the error must be of a kind that goes to the very authority of the decision-maker to make the decision. The Court analysed the specific facts of each applicant's case in light of these principles, considering whether the decision-makers had properly applied the law to the facts before them. The Court affirmed that a failure to consider a mandatory consideration or the consideration of an irrelevant consideration could, in certain circumstances, amount to jurisdictional error.

The applications for judicial review were dismissed.