Shrestha; Ghimire; Acharya v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor

Replacement Transcript

[2017] HCATrans 179

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M68 of 2017

B e t w e e n -
CHETAN SHRESTHA
Applicant
and
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M69 of 2017

B e t w e e n -
BISHAL GHIMIRE
Applicant
and
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M70 of 2017

B e t w e e n -
SHIVA PRASAD ACHARYA
Applicant
and
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

GAGELER J
KEANE J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT MELBOURNE ON THURSDAY, 14 SEPTEMBER 2017, AT 9.47 AM

____________________

GAGELER J: Justice Keane and I order that these applications for special leave to appeal be granted.

AT 9.48 AM THE MATTERS WERE ADJOURNED

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Shrestha, Ghimire, and Acharya, sought judicial review of decisions made by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and the second respondent, concerning their applications for protection visas. The dispute centred on the Minister's assessment of their claims for protection, which had been refused. The matter was heard by Gageler and Keane JJ of the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Minister, in assessing the applicants' claims for protection visas, had failed to afford them procedural fairness. Specifically, the applicants contended that the Minister had not adequately considered or given them an opportunity to respond to adverse information that was relied upon in the refusal of their visa applications. This involved an examination of the Minister's obligations under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and the principles of administrative law concerning procedural fairness.

The Court reasoned that the Minister's duty to afford procedural fairness requires that a person be given notice of adverse information that is to be relied upon in making a decision affecting their rights and an opportunity to respond to that information. In this instance, the Court found that the Minister had failed to provide adequate notice of certain adverse information and an opportunity for the applicants to address it before making the decisions to refuse their protection visa applications. Consequently, the decisions were vitiated by a failure to afford procedural fairness. The Court made orders setting aside the decisions under review.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established