<P> In September 1993 in the Federal Court, French J dismissed the application, finding that the acceptance of the Panel's recommendation and the ordering of deportation had not been an improper exercise of power, a denial of natural justice, nor did it involve the consideration of irrelevant factors by the decision - makers . </P> <P> On appeal, the full bench of the Federal Court (Black CJ, Lee and Carr JJ) found that the decision - maker's power had been improperly exercised because it had failed to make appropriate investigations into the hardship to Teoh's wife and her children were Teoh refused resident status . The full court ordered a stay of the deportation order until the decision had been reconsidered in light of the court's finding . The Immigration Minister appealed against the decision to the High Court of Australia . </P> <P> The majority (Mason CJ, Deane, Toohey and Gaudron JJ) agreed with the Federal Court decision that there had been a breach of natural justice, as the Immigration department had failed to invite Teoh to make a submission on whether a deportation order should be made, contrary to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which provided that in any administrative decision concerning a child, the child's best interests must be a primary consideration . </P> <P> Mason CJ, Deane and Toohey JJ accepted as correct the finding of Carr and Lee JJ that the ratification of an international convention can be a basis for the existence of a legitimate expectation and that, in this instance, there had been a want of procedural fairness . McHugh J dissented on this point and Gaudron J did not rely upon it in her reasons . </P>

Minister of state for immigration and ethnic affairs v teoh summary