Pearson wrongly decided?

Some of the questions to the High Court (HCA) were as follows:

Question 1: Does Migration Amendment (Aggregate Sentences) Act 2023 (Cth) assert or assume that Pearson v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] FCAFC 203 was correct?

Question 2: Is a special leave application to the High Court to appeal an interlocutory proceeding, the refusal of which does not create a res judicata?

Question 3: If the answer to Question 2 is 'yes', will the making of a further application for special leave on the same grounds as previously put forward nevertheless ordinarily amount to an abuse of process, absent "exceptional circumstances" or a "compelling explanation or circumstance" or the like?

Question 4: Are the Commonwealth and its Ministers sophisticated litigants?

Question 5: Will the circumstances in which a sophisticated litigant will be allowed to reconsider its litigious choices necessarily be rare?

Question 6: In circumstances in which a sophisticated litigant seeks to reconsider its litigious choices, will the occasioning of any prejudice, other than costs, to a respondent from that reconsideration, often prove decisive against such litigant?

Question 7: Does the obligation to cancel imposed by s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) require the formation of a reasonable suspicion?

Question 8: Was Pearson v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] FCAFC 203 wrongly decided?

The HCA answered those questions as follows: