Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] HCA 15

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FRENCH CJ, KIEFEL, BELL, KEANE AND NETTLE JJ

PETER UELESE APPELLANT

AND

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION & ANOR RESPONDENTS

Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] HCA 15 6 May 2015 S277/2014

ORDER

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Set aside paragraphs 2 and 3 of the order of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia made on 8 August 2013 and, in their place, order that:

(a) the appeal is allowed;

(b) the order of Buchanan J made on 18 April 2013 is set aside and, in its place, it is ordered that:

(i) a writ of certiorari issue directed to the second respondent, quashing its decision made on 14 November 2012;

(ii) a writ of prohibition issue directed to the first respondent, prohibiting him from giving effect to the decision of the second respondent made on 14 November 2012;

(iii) a writ of mandamus issue directed to the second respondent, requiring it to determine the applicant's application for review according to law; and

(iv) the first respondent pay the applicant's costs; and

(c) the first respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.

3. The first respondent is to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal to this Court.

On appeal from the Federal Court of Australia

Representation

N J Owens with D P Hume for the appellant (instructed by Marque Lawyers)

G T Johnson SC with P M Knowles for the first respondent (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)

Submitting appearance for the second respondent

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

CATCHWORDS

Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

Migration and citizenship – Visa cancellation – Character test – Administrative Appeals Tribunal – Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 500(6H) precludes Tribunal from having regard to information presented orally in support of a person's case unless provided in written statement to Minister two days before Tribunal holds a hearing – Information arose regarding children during cross‑examination of witness called on behalf of appellant – Tribunal required to consider best interests of minor children in Australia – Whether Tribunal erred in its application of s 500(6H) by not considering that information – Relevance of whether information could reasonably have been anticipated by appellant.