Constitutional law (Cth) – Judicial power of Commonwealth – Where s 44(1) of Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ("Act") provided party to certain proceedings before Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("Tribunal") may appeal to Federal Court of Australia on question of law from decision of Tribunal – Where s 46(2) of Act provided that if certificate in force certifying disclosure of matter contained in document would be contrary to public interest Federal Court must do all things necessary to ensure matter not disclosed to any person other than member of court as constituted for purposes of proceeding – Where in accordance with s 39B of Act such certificate included certificate issued by "ASIO Minister" certifying disclosure of matter would be contrary to public interest because it would prejudice security or defence or international relations of Australia – Where plaintiff sought declaration that s 46(2) of Act invalid on ground it infringes Ch III of the Constitution – Where earlier decision of High Court in SDCV v Director-General of Security (2022) 277 CLR 241 held s 46(2) of Act valid – Whether s 46(2) invalid because it required Federal Court to depart from "general rule" of procedural fairness more than reasonably necessary to protect compelling and legitimate public interest – Whether SDCV authority to contrary – Whether leave to re-open and overrule SDCV should be granted.
Words and phrases – "adverse evidence", "ASIO", "certificate", "certified matter", "defence", "disclosure", "essential characteristic of a court", "forensic advantage", "heavy persuasive burden", "international relations", "practical injustice", "procedural fairness", "proportionality", "public interest immunity", "ratio decidendi", "reasonably necessary to protect a compelling and legitimate public interest", "security assessment", "special advocate".
Constitution, Ch III.
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), ss 39A, 39B, 44, 46.