San Bao Pty Ltd v Minister for Immigration and CitizenshipCitation:[2026] HCA 6Before:Edelman, Steward, Gleeson JJDate:11 Mar 2026Case Number:S160/2025Read more
The Court held that the delegate did not constructively fail to exercise jurisdiction and the decision was not legally unreasonable, as all relevant material was considered and the refusal was within the scope of lawful discretion.
Source-derived case information.
- Parties
- Plaintiff: San Bao Pty Ltd; Defendant: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 11 March 2026
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Judgment
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Jurisdictional Error, Visa Nomination Refusal, Constructive Failure to Exercise Jurisdiction, Legal Unreasonableness
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
San Bao Pty Ltd
Plaintiff
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the delegate of the Minister constructively failed to exercise jurisdiction by refusing the nomination application
- 2 Whether the delegate's decision was legally unreasonable
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that the delegate did not constructively fail to exercise jurisdiction and the decision was not legally unreasonable, as all relevant material was considered and the refusal was within the scope of lawful discretion.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- The application is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Judgment date 11 March 2026 Case number S160/2025 Before Edelman, Steward, Gleeson JJ Catchwords Administrative law – Judicial review – Jurisdictional error – Where application for approval of nomination of individual for Subclass 482 (Skills in Demand) visa refused – Where refusal was based, amongst other things, on consideration of documents and information provided by plaintiff – Where delegate not satisfied that position associated with nominated occupation is genuine – Where application for constitutional or other writ is brought because no other tribunal or court has jurisdiction, respectively, to review or judicially review decision – Whether delegate of Minister constructively failed to exercise jurisdiction by refusing nomination application – Whether delegate's decision was legally unreasonable. Words and phrases – "abuse of process", "business sponsor", "constitutional writs", "constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction", "delay", "jurisdictional error", "legally unreasonable", "nomination", "organisational chart", "original jurisdiction", "Skills in Demand", "unavailability of the usual court process". Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), ss 18(1), 295(1). Administrative Review Tribunal Rules 2024 (Cth), r 6(3). High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), r 25.02. Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 140E, 140GB, 338(1), 338(9), 476, 476B. Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), regs 2.58(1)(a), 2.59, 4.02(4)(d), Div 2.17. Files San Bao Pty Ltd v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (S160-2025) [2026] HCA 6.docx (228.04 KB) San Bao Pty Ltd v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (S160-2025) [2026] HCA 6.pdf (417.8 KB)