PHMK v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2019] FCA 1776
Because s 500(6L) had already operated at midnight on 22 May 2019 to deem the delegate's non-revocation decision affirmed, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to make a merits decision on 27 May 2019. The 27 May 2019 document was nevertheless a purported exercise of power and a purported privative clause decision, giving the Court jurisdiction. Certiorari, prohibition and injunction were refused because the purported decision had no actual legal effect or legal consequences and there was no basis to restrain legally binding reliance on it. A limited declaration was appropriate because the form and content of the purported decision created a real practical risk that its reasons and adverse...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 31 October 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Constitutional Writs, Certiorari, Declaration and Injunction Concerning a Purported Administrative Appeals Tribunal Migration Decision / Federal Court Judgment on Further Amended Originating Application
- Outcome
- Declaration granted in limited form; further amended originating application otherwise dismissed; first respondent ordered to pay the applicant's costs.
- Legal Topics
- ['administrative Appeals Tribunal Merits Review' 'visa Cancellation and Non Revocation' 'section 500(6 L) Deemed Affirmation' 'purported Privative Clause Decision' 'certiorari' 'prohibition' 'injunction' 'declaratory Relief']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application for Constitutional Writs, Certiorari, Declaration and Injunction Concerning a Purported Administrative Appeals Tribunal Migration Decision / Federal Court Judgment on Further Amended Originating Application
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the Tribunal's 27 May 2019 document was a purported privative clause decision within s 5E of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)." 'Whether the Tribunal had power to make the 27 May 2019 purported decision after the 84 day period in s 500(6L) had expired.' "Whether certiorari should issue to quash the Tribunal's purported decision." "Whether prohibition or an injunction should restrain reliance on the Tribunal's purported decision." "Whether a declaration should be made that the Tribunal's purported decision was made without power and was of no legal effect."]
Ratio Decidendi
Because s 500(6L) had already operated at midnight on 22 May 2019 to deem the delegate's non-revocation decision affirmed, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to make a merits decision on 27 May 2019. The 27 May 2019 document was nevertheless a purported exercise of power and a purported privative clause decision, giving the Court jurisdiction. Certiorari, prohibition and injunction were refused because the purported decision had no actual legal effect or legal consequences and there was no basis to restrain legally binding reliance on it. A limited declaration was appropriate because the form and content of the purported decision created a real practical risk that its reasons and adverse...
Court Disposition
Declaration granted in limited form; further amended originating application otherwise dismissed; first respondent ordered to pay the applicant's costs.
Orders
- ['The parties provide to the chambers of Justice Bromwich a draft agreed declaration, or failing that, competing draft versions of a declaration, in accordance with the reasons for judgment, within 7 days or such longer time as may be sought and allowed.' 'The further amended originating application otherwise be...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment