Plaintiff M87/2023 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCATrans 40 (30 May 2024)

Last Updated: 30 May 2024

[2024] HCATrans 040

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M87 of 2023

B e t w e e n -

PLAINTIFF M87/2023

Plaintiff

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Defendant

STEWARD J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA BY VIDEO CONNECTION

ON THURSDAY, 30 MAY 2024, AT 9.30 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HIS HONOUR: In accordance with the protocol for remote hearings, I will announce the appearances for the parties.

MR A.N.P. McBETH appears for the plaintiff. (instructed by Russell Kennedy Lawyers)

MS K.N. HOOPER appears for the defendant. (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)

HIS HONOUR: Mr McBeth, the purpose of this short directions hearing is simply to ascertain whether you are both ready to proceed to have this matter heard or whether there are any further steps that you think need to be completed.

MR McBETH: The short answer is, your Honour, that we are ready to proceed, and my understanding is – I will not speak for Ms Hooper – that there are some mutually available dates. There are no steps required, save if the Court’s preference is for any material to be presented in any particular form. Otherwise, we are ready to proceed, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Do you agree with that, Ms Hooper?

MS HOOPER: Yes, I do, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Mr McBeth, given the nature of the matter, I am presently inclined to determine it on the papers, but also to give you and Ms Hooper an opportunity to file any further written submissions that you might wish to make at a date which is convenient to you both. That is simply because we are a small Court and we have limited capacity, frankly. I think it would be more efficient, from the perspective of your client and Ms Hooper’s client, if it was heard on the papers.

If I feel there is a need for an oral hearing, naturally I will contact the parties through the Registry and we can proceed to find a date that is convenient to you both. I had in mind, Mr McBeth, that I would give you both, perhaps, three weeks to file any further written submissions and I had in mind that I would limit them to 15 pages in length, bearing in mind that I have a fairly good appreciation of your arguments, Mr McBeth, from your amended application and, Ms Hooper, I have a good appreciation of your arguments based upon your amended response.

Can I ask, Mr McBeth, there is an affidavit that has been filed by your party and an affidavit filed by the AGS. Do you have any objections to the AGS’ affidavit?

MR McBETH: No, we do not, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Ms Hooper, do you have any objections to Mr McBeth’s affidavit?

MS HOOPER: No, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: All right. Will three weeks be enough, Mr McBeth? Would that suit you? Do you want a bit more time?

MR McBETH: No, three weeks would suit, your Honour. I would ask, as well, whether there would be provision made for a reply.

HIS HONOUR: I am not inclined to do that at this stage. I do not want to engage in an interminable war between you and Ms Hooper over this issue. We have already had the issues sufficiently delineated. The aim of the written submission would be for you to add whatever else you might have wanted to have said to me in oral submission. It is supplementary in nature, so I do not think there is need for a reply.

I thought 15 pages was probably more than enough for you to make the points you wish to make, if any. I might add, you do not have to file the submission if you do not want to, but it really is in substitution of an oral hearing.

MR McBETH: Yes, I understood your Honour. Yes, we certainly would want to put on further submissions if there is not to be an oral hearing.

HIS HONOUR: And 15 pages should be sufficient?

MR McBETH: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: Ms Hooper, do you agree with that?

MS HOOPER: Yes, I do, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: All right, then the only order I will make today will be as follows – Ms Hooper, are you happy with three weeks, as well?

MS HOOPER: Yes. Would that run from my friend’s submissions, your Honour?

HIS HONOUR: No, you both will be filing on the same day. It will not be three weeks, three weeks. It will just be three weeks from now.

MS HOOPER: Could I ask, your Honour, if we could have, say, a week after my friend’s submissions so that we can respond to what he says.

HIS HONOUR: No, I do not want to do that. We have had that opportunity already. The purpose of these written submissions is a substitute for what you might have said orally, and I want you both to file on the same day.

MS HOOPER: I understand, thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: All right. The only order I will make today will be as follows:

1. The plaintiff and defendant file any written submissions on which they rely on or before 4.00 pm on 20 June 2024, limited in each case to 15 pages in length.

Otherwise, I will adjourn today’s hearing. Can I thank you both for your attendance today. Adjourn the Court.

AT 9.35 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED