Is r 2.55(3) invalid?

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

Question 1: Is the formation of the Minister's opinion under s 494A(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) according to which he may give a document to a person by any method that he or she considers appropriate amenable to judicial review "where it appears there has been a failure to address the correct question, a material mistake of law, the taking into account of extraneous or irrelevant matters or a failure to take into account relevant considerations or where the decision is illogical, irrational or plainly unreasonable"?

Question 2: Is r 2.55(3)(c) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) outside the power conferred by s 504(1)(e)(i) of the Act in cases where the Minister decides to exercise the power in s 494A(1)?

Question 3: Did r 2.55(3) bind the Minister not to exercise the power in s 494A(1)?

Question 4: Is r 2.55(3) inconsistent with s 494A(1) and therefore invalid?

Question 5: Can a question of inconsistency between s 494A(1) and r 2.55(3)(c) arise until the power in s 494A(1) has actually been exercised?

Question 6: Can it be said that "ss 494A-494C could not apply, as a matter of construction, to a provision of the Act which required the notification of a cancellation decision to be given to a person in a ‘prescribed way’ (s 127(1))"?

Question 7: For the purpose of r 2.55(3)(c), could a prison’s post office box address also be the post office box address of one of its inmates, in the absence of evidence that the involuntary nature of detention impacted on the ability of inmates to receive mail sent to the address of the prison?

The FCAFC answered those questions as follows: