MZAPC v Minister for Immigration and Border ProtectionCitation:[2021] HCA 17Before:Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson JJDate:19 May 2021Case Number:M77/2020Read more

MZAPC v Minister for Immigration and Border ProtectionCitation:[2021] HCA 17Before:Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson JJDate:19 May 2021Case Number:M77/2020Read more

The High Court held that the failure to disclose the s 438 notification to the appellant was not a material breach of procedural fairness because there was no realistic possibility that disclosure would have led to a different outcome, and the Tribunal did not take the undisclosed information into account in its decision.

Parties
Appellant: Appellant; Respondent: First Respondent
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review, Materiality, Onus of Proof
Immigration Law Administrative Law Procedural Fairness Judicial Review Materiality Onus of Proof

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Appellant

Appellant

First Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to disclose s 438 notification to appellant amounted to a material breach of procedural fairness
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal took into account information covered by s 438 notification in making its decision
  3. 3 Whether the Federal Court erred by presuming the Tribunal did not take the s 438 notification information into account

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that the failure to disclose the s 438 notification to the appellant was not a material breach of procedural fairness because there was no realistic possibility that disclosure would have led to a different outcome, and the Tribunal did not take the undisclosed information into account in its decision.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Appellant to pay the first respondent's costs