Minister for Home Affairs v DUA16 [2020] HCA 46

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KIEFEL CJ, BELL, KEANE, GORDON AND EDELMAN JJ

Matter No M57/2020

MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS APPELLANT

AND

DUA16 & ANOR RESPONDENTS

Matter No M58/2020

MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS APPELLANT

AND

CHK16 & ANOR RESPONDENTS

Minister for Home Affairs v DUA16 Minister for Home Affairs v CHK16 [2020] HCA 46 Date of Hearing: 14 October 2020 Date of Judgment: 9 December 2020 M57/2020 & M58/2020

ORDER

Matter No M57/2020

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Save as to costs, set aside the orders of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia made on 10 December 2019 and, in their place, order that:

(a) the appeal be allowed; and

(b) orders 1 and 2 of the orders of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia made on 30 April 2019 be set aside and, in their place, it be ordered that the application be dismissed.

Matter No M58/2020

Appeal dismissed.

On appeal from the Federal Court of Australia

Representation

G R Kennett SC with N M Wood for the appellant in both matters (instructed by Clayton Utz)

G A Costello SC and A N P McBeth for the first respondent in both matters (instructed by Clothier Anderson Immigration Lawyers)

Submitting appearance for the second respondent in both matters

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

CATCHWORDS

Minister for Home Affairs v DUA16 Minister for Home Affairs v CHK16

Immigration – Refugees – Application for protection visa – Immigration Assessment Authority ("Authority") – Review by Authority under Pt 7AA of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Where applicants engaged registered migration agent to provide submissions to Authority – Where agent fraudulently provided pro forma submissions – Where fraudulent submissions contained personal information relevant to a different person – Where Authority unaware of fraud but aware that submissions erroneously related to another individual – Where Authority disregarded information relating to another individual – Whether agent's fraud stultified Authority's review – Whether Authority's decision was vitiated by agent's fraud – Whether agent's fraud contributed in adverse way to exercise of any duty, function, or power by Authority – Whether Authority's failure to seek corrected submissions containing potentially new information legally unreasonable.