High Court of Australia
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
KIEFEL CJ,
GORDON, EDELMAN, STEWARD AND GLEESON JJ
AZC20 APPELLANT
AND
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP,
MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL
AFFAIRS & ORS RESPONDENTS
AZC20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs
[2023] HCA 26
Date of Hearing: 11 May 2023
Date of Judgment: 6 September 2023
M84/2022 & M85/2022
ORDER
Matter No M84/2022
1. Appeal allowed with costs.
2. Set aside the orders made by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia on 5 April 2022 in proceeding VID659/2021 and, in their place, order that:
(a) the applications for leave to appeal the orders made by the Federal Court of Australia on 13 October 2021 in proceedings VID89/2021 and VID503/2021 be refused with costs; and
(b) the appeals otherwise be dismissed with costs.
Matter No M85/2022
1. Appeal allowed with costs.
2. Set aside the orders made by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia on 5 April 2022 in proceeding VID660/2021 and, in their place, order that:
(a) the applications for leave to appeal the orders made by the Federal Court of Australia on 13 October 2021 in proceedings VID89/2021 and VID503/2021 be refused with costs; and
(b) the appeals otherwise be dismissed with costs.
On appeal from the Federal Court of Australia
Representation
C L Lenehan SC with M L L Albert and J R Murphy for the appellant (instructed by Human Rights Law Centre)
S P Donaghue KC, Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth, and P M Knowles SC with N A Wootton for the respondents (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.
CATCHWORDS
AZC20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs
Constitutional Law (Cth) – Judicial power of the Commonwealth – Jurisdiction – Appeals – Meaning of "matter" – Where appellant commenced proceedings in Federal Court of Australia seeking mandamus to require Secretary of Department of Home Affairs to remove him from Australia to a regional processing country under s 198AD(2) of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Where Federal Court made orders declaring s 198AD(2) of Act applied to appellant, requiring Secretary to perform duty under s 198AD(2) as soon as reasonably practicable, and requiring appellant be detained in immigration detention at a residential address pending removal to a regional processing country – Where Minister for Home Affairs subsequently exercised power under s 198AE(1) of Act to determine duty under s 198AD(2) did not apply to appellant – Where respondents sought to appeal primary judge's orders to Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia – Where at time of appeals primary judge's orders did not have any operative legal effect – Whether there was a "matter" within meaning of Ch III of Constitution at time Full Court made orders determining appeals – Whether there was a justiciable controversy before Full Court – Whether Full Court had jurisdiction to determine appeals.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate