Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal [2002] HCA 30

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GLEESON CJ,

GAUDRON, McHUGH, GUMMOW, KIRBY, HAYNE AND CALLINAN JJ

MUIN PLAINTIFF

AND

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ORS DEFENDANTS

Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal

[2002] HCA 30

8 August 2002

S36/1999

ORDER

The questions reserved for consideration by the Full Court are answered as follows:

Question 1

Was there a failure to accord the Plaintiff procedural fairness?

Answer

Yes.

Question 2

Was there a failure to comply with s 418(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)?

Answer

Inappropriate to answer.

Question 3

Was there a failure to comply with s 424(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)?

Answer

Inappropriate to answer.

Question 4

If the answer to any of questions (1) to (3) is yes,

1. Was the decision of the First Defendant to affirm the refusal of the delegate to grant a protection visa for that reason invalid? 2. What declaratory, injunctive or prerogative writ relief, if any, should be ordered?

Answer

(a) Yes.

(b) Prohibition should issue to prevent the second and third defendants from acting on the Tribunal's decision; certiorari should issue to quash that decision; and mandamus should issue to the first defendant directing it to hear and determine the plaintiff's review application in accordance with law.

Question 5

By whom should the costs of the proceedings be borne?

Answer

The second and third defendants.

Representation:

M A Robinson with R Nair for the plaintiff (instructed by Adrian Joel & Co)

No appearance for the first defendant

J Basten QC with R T Beech-Jones for the second and third defendants (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GLEESON CJ,

GAUDRON, McHUGH, GUMMOW, KIRBY, HAYNE AND CALLINAN JJ

NANCY LIE PLAINTIFF

AND