MZXOT v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIAGLEESON CJ,GUMMOW, KIRBY, HAYNE, HEYDON, CRENNAN AND KIEFEL JJMZXOT  PLAINTIFFANDMINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP  DEFENDANTMZXOT v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] HCA 2818 June 2008M36/2007ORDERThe questions reserved in the case stated dated 8 November 2007 be answered as follows:Q1.Is the effect of sections 476, 476A, 476B and 484 of the Act, read with the definition of "migration decision" in sections 5, 5E and 474, that the only Court that can hear and determine an application for any or all of:(a)the constitutional writs of prohibition and mandamus;(b)the constitutional remedy of injunction against an officer of the Commonwealth;(c)the public law remedy of certiorari;(d)the public law remedy of declaration in a suit against the Commonwealth or a person being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth,in respect of a "primary decision" (as defined in s 476(4)), is the High Court of Australia?A.Yes.Q2.If the answer to Question 1 is "Yes", are any or all of sections 476, 476A, 476B and 484 of the Act invalid:A.because they curtail, limit or impair, either directly or as a matter of practical effect, the constitutional role of this Court?B.because they curtail, limit or impair, either directly or as a matter of practical effect, the right or ability of applicants to seek the relief identified in paragraphs (a)-(d) of Question 1?A.       Unnecessary to answer.Q3.If the answer to Question 1 is "Yes", are any or all of sections 476, 476A, 476B and 484 of the Act, and/or sections 38(e) and 39(1) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)...