Applicant A26/02 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

Case [2004] FCAFC 192


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant A26/02 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 192

APPLICANT A26/02 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

S827 of 2003

CARR, GYLES & LANDER JJ
21 JULY 2004
ADELAIDE & PERTH (By video-link to Sydney)


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

S827 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT A26/02
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

CARR, GYLES & LANDER JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

21 JULY 2004

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE & PERTH (By video-link to Sydney)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant pay the respondent's costs of both applications, including the costs of the respondent's motion, notice of which was filed on 16 July 2004. 

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

S827 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT A26/02
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

CARR, GYLES & LANDER JJ

DATE:

21 JULY 2004

PLACE:

ADELAIDE & PERTH (By video-link to Sydney)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

CARR J:

  1. On 14 July 2004 the Court ordered that both these applications be dismissed for reasons which we published at that time.  The orders did not provide for the costs of those applications.  The respondent has filed a motion seeking an order that the applicant pay her costs.  We have heard that motion this morning.  My view is that the costs should follow the event in this matter, there being no special circumstances which would warrant not applying that general rule.  I would order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of both applications including the costs of the respondent's motion notice of which was filed on 16 July 2004.

I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of Justice Carr.

Associate:

Dated:               29 July 2004


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

S827 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT A26/02
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

CARR, GYLES & LANDER JJ

DATE:

21 JULY 2004

PLACE:

ADELAIDE & PERTH (By video-link to Sydney)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

GYLES J:  

  1. I agree.  The time for submissions about costs, if they were not to follow the event, is at the hearing, and I refer to the decision of the Full Court in Hanave v LFOT Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 572. Furthermore, the relisting of the matter is not only a question of the respondent’s motion, although that is before us. The orders have not been entered and the costs should have been dealt with. They were not. It is a conventional application of the power to perfect and correct orders previously made. I agree with Carr J's proposed order.

I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Hon Justice Gyles.

Associate:

Dated:               29 July 2004


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

S827 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT A26/02
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

CARR, GYLES & LANDER JJ

DATE:

21 JULY 2004

PLACE:

ADELAIDE AND PERTH (By video-link to Sydney)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

LANDER J:

  1. I also agree with Carr J's proposed order and for the reasons he gave.

I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Hon Justice Lander.

Associate:

Dated:               29 July 2004

The Applicant did not appear:
Solicitor for the Respondent: Mr R White of Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing: 21 July 2004
Date of Judgment: 21 July 2004
Details
AGLC
Applicant A26/02 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 192
Case
[2004] FCAFC 192
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, a citizen of Sri Lanka, sought judicial review of a decision of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs to refuse an application for a bridging visa. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant contended that the Minister had failed to properly consider the merits of the application for a bridging visa and that the refusal was unreasonable. The Minister argued that the application was properly considered and that the refusal was lawful.

The court was required to determine whether the Minister had considered all relevant material and whether the decision to refuse the application was lawful. The court noted that the Minister had considered the applicant's personal circumstances and the public interest factors relevant to the grant of a bridging visa. The court found that the Minister had properly exercised his discretion in refusing the application. The court also found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the decision was unreasonable in any way.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the applicant's application for judicial review. The court ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of both applications, including the costs of the respondent's motion, notice of which was filed on 16 July 2004. The court held that the Minister's decision to refuse the application for a bridging visa was lawful and that the applicant had not demonstrated that the decision was unreasonable in any way.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of both applications, including the costs of the respondent's motion, notice of which was filed on 16 July 2004.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.