Minister for Home Affairs v DMA18

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIAKIEFEL CJ,BELL, GAGELER, KEANE AND GORDON JJMatter No M27/2020MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS & ORS  APPELLANTSANDDMA18 AS LITIGATION GUARDIANFOR DLZ18 & ANOR  RESPONDENTSMatter No M28/2020MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS & ANOR  APPELLANTSANDMARIE THERESA ARTHUR AS LITIGATION REPRESENTATIVE FOR BXD18  RESPONDENTMatter No M29/2020MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS & ANOR  APPELLANTSANDFRX17 AS LITIGATION REPRESENTATIVEFOR FRM17   RESPONDENTMatter No M30/2020MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS & ANOR  APPELLANTSANDDJA18 AS LITIGATION REPRESENTATIVEFOR DIZ18  RESPONDENTMinister for Home Affairs v DMA18 as litigation guardian for DLZ18Minister for Home Affairs v Marie Theresa Arthur as litigation representative for BXD18Minister for Home Affairs v FRX17 as litigation representative for FRM17Minister for Home Affairs v DJA18 as litigation representative for DIZ18[2020] HCA 43Date of Hearing: 1 September 2020Date of Judgment: 2 December 2020M27/2020, M28/2020, M29/2020 & M30/2020ORDERIn each of Matter Nos M27/2020 and M29/2020:1.Appeal allowed. 2. Set aside paragraph 1 of the orders made by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia on 28 August 2019 and, in its place, order:"1.The questions ordered to be separately answered be determined as follows:Questions:(a)When the proceeding was commenced in the Federal Court of Australia, was the effect of s 494AB of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) that it could not be instituted? and(b)Is the effect of s 494AB of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) that the proceeding cannot be continued in the Federal Court of Australia? Answers:(a)No, but the respondents, if so advised, could have sought, in an appropriate case, to plead that s 494AB applied to the proceeding; and (b)No, but the...