Grant of injunction to interfere with statutory duty only in exceptional cases?

Some of the questions to the Federal Court (FCA) were as follows:

Question 1: Is the effect of s 198(2B)(c) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) that, for so long as a non-citizen "has pending representations under s 501CA and there has not been a decision as to whether to exercise the power to revoke the visa cancellation then, unless he agrees to his removal from Australia, he is to be kept in detention"?

Question 2: Will the terms of s 198(2B) only be met if the decision not to revoke is both made and notified as required by s 501G?

Question 3: Is the grant of an injunction that interfered with the performance of the statutory duty to remove unlawful non-citizens from Australia as soon as practicable exceptional, therefore requiring there to be a strong case for the making of the order?

Question 4: Does compliance with the requirement in s 501CA(3)(b) to invite a person to make representations to the Minister about revocation of a decision to cancel a visa that was made under s 501(3A) fall within conduct 'preparatory to the making of a decision' under s 474(3)(h)?

Question 5: Does the Federal Court have jurisdiction with respect to a challenge to service of written notice under s 501G?

Question 6: Do the expansive terms of s 474(3) refer to the process for notification of a decision?

Question 7: Did the fact that the Form 956 made clear that written notices required by the Migration Act were to be given to the Applicant necessarily mean that the Applicant's solicitor was asking the Minister not to tell them of the outcome, in circumstances where the solicitor indicated to the Minister that the Applicant should receive correspondence from the Minister directly?

Question 8: To the extent that the costs of detention favour the Minister on the balance of convenience, can those costs be ameliorated by the matter proceeding to an early hearing?

The FCA answered those questions as follows: