MJZP v Director-General of SecurityCitation:[2025] HCA 26Before:Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot, Beech-Jones JJDate:06 Aug 2025Case Number:S142/2023Read more

Section 46(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) does not infringe Chapter III of the Constitution as it does not require the Federal Court to depart from procedural fairness more than is reasonably necessary to protect compelling and legitimate public interests such as national security.

Parties: Plaintiff: MJZP; Defendant: Director-General of Security
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 06 August 2025
Procedural Posture: Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Outcome: Petition dismissed
Legal Topics: Judicial Power, Procedural Fairness, Public Interest Immunity

Constitutional Law Administrative Law Judicial Power Procedural Fairness Public Interest Immunity

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

Parties

MJZP

Plaintiff

Director-General of Security

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether s 46(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) is invalid for infringing Chapter III of the Constitution
2 Whether s 46(2) requires the Federal Court to depart from procedural fairness more than reasonably necessary
3 Whether the earlier decision in SDCV v Director-General of Security should be overruled

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

The application for a declaration that s 46(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) is invalid is dismissed.
Leave to re-open and overrule SDCV is refused.