Plaintiff M19A/2024 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

High Court – Appellate jurisdiction – Practice – Reasons for judgment – Where first appellant sent Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation ("NOICC") of visa – Where first appellant did not respond to NOICC – Where first appellant did not have legal obligation to respond to NOICC – Where delegate of respondent gave weight to first appellant not responding to NOICC – Where appellants sought to raise in amended notice of appeal for first time contention that delegate of respondent committed jurisdictional error by giving weight to first appellant's non-response to NOICC – Where respondent conceded that jurisdictional error before hearing of appeal – Where parties provided to Court agreed document explaining circumstances – Whether reasons for decision required when orders sought by consent – Whether appropriate to make orders by consent – Whether decision of delegate affected by jurisdictional error.

Words and phrases – "appellate jurisdiction", "concession", "consent orders", "institutional responsibility", "jurisdictional error", "legal obligation", "original jurisdiction", "reasons".

Constitution – ss 73, 75.

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) – s 37.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – ss 116, 119, 140.