Scam alert – fraudulent email address ‘subpoena@hcourt.gov.au’

The Court is aware of a scam involving the use of a fraudulent email address purporting to be an official High Court email address – ‘subpoena@hcourt.gov.au’ 

This email address is not associated with, authorised by, or operated by the Court. 

Recipients of emails from this account should exercise caution and should not click on links, open attachments or provide personal or financial information. 

Plaintiff S10/2011 v. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Anor

Case No. S10/2011
Case information

Catchwords

Citizenship and migration — Migration — Ministerial discretion — Procedural fairness — Section 417 of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("Act") empowers first defendant ("Minister") to substitute decision of Refugee Review Tribunal ("RRT") made under s 415 of Act with another decision more favourable to an applicant, if Minister thinks it is "in the public interest to do so" — Section 48B of Act empowers Minister to determine that s 48A of Act does not apply to prevent application for protection visa made by non-citizen, if Minister thinks it is "in the public interest to do so" — Plaintiff applied for Ministerial intervention pursuant to ss 48B and 417 of Act — In October 2010, Minister's delegate informed plaintiff that Minister had decided not to exercise power under s 417 of Act ("the s 417 decision), and plaintiff's s 48B application had been assessed against Minister's Guidelines but was not referred to Minister ("the s 48B decision") — Whether Minister and or second defendant through his officers failed to accord procedural fairness to plaintiff in the s 48B decision and the s 417 decision by taking into consideration certain matters without providing plaintiff with opportunity to know about or comment on those matters — Whether plaintiff had legitimate expectation that information provided by him in respect of his applications would be considered in assessing whether he fell within Guidelines — Whether Minister and or second defendant through his officers failed to apply Minister's Guidelines correctly by taking into account irrelevant considerations or failing to take into account relevant considerations — Whether jurisdictional error occurred irrespective of privative clause in s 474(2) of Act.

Short Particulars

Documents

07/01/2011 Application for an order to show cause

12/04/2011 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)

29/04/2011 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)

27/05/2011 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)

07/07/2011 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)

08/07/2011 Amended Application for an order to show cause

29/07/2011 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)

01/09/2011 Amended Application for an order to show cause

13/09/2011 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)

28/10/2011 Written submissions (Plaintiffs)

08/11/2011 Chronology

09/12/2011 Written submissions (First and Second Defendants)

23/12/2011 Reply

23/12/2011 Chronology (First and Second Defendants)

23/12/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening)

04/01/2012 Amended Notice of Constitutional Matter

01/02/2012 Reply to intervener (Plaintiff)

07/02/2012 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra)

08/02/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)

09/02/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)

07/09/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)