Sultan & Ors v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

This matter came before the High Court of Australia concerning an application by the plaintiffs, represented by Mr L. Boccabella, against the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, represented by Mr T. Liu. The dispute involved the plaintiffs' contention that a change in the Department's practice regarding the processing of visa applications, where matters remain dormant for years and are then revived without notice, has wider implications for hundreds of visa applicants. The plaintiffs sought to expand their written submissions to provide greater substance to the issues at hand, arguing that the existing submissions were truncated and insufficient to properly address the matter.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the plaintiffs should be permitted to file expanded written submissions, and whether the case, due to its potential impact on a large number of visa applicants, should be referred to a Bench of three Judges rather than being heard by a single Judge. The defendant initially opposed the request for further written submissions, arguing they would be duplicative, but indicated no opposition to the matter being referred to a larger Bench.

Her Honour considered the submissions regarding the expanded written materials, directing that any new submissions should be in the form of substituted documents that incorporate all desired arguments. Crucially, Her Honour noted the plaintiffs' assertion that hundreds of matters were in a similar position and indicated an intention to refer the case to colleagues to determine if a Bench of three Judges was warranted. The Court directed the parties to confer and provide a note to the Court by 4.00 pm on Friday, 13 December 2024, outlining their respective positions and reasons regarding whether the hearing should be before a single Judge or three Judges.

The Court made orders concerning the timetable for the filing of submissions and affidavits, and the process for determining the composition of the Bench. The matter was to be listed for a remote oral hearing on a date to be determined in consultation with the parties, with the hearing not to occur until after 14 March 2025. The final determination on whether the case would proceed before a single Judge or a Bench of three Judges was to be made following the parties' submissions on that point.