3 /CL%'
JUDGMENT NO. ..w.allnl,n.l .n1.e*~.
| IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) | No. QG 132 of 1992 |
| QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY | 1 |
| GENERAL DIVISION | 1 |
BETWEEN: CHARLES JAMES BARDEN
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR 1~4t~11GRATION. LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS Respondent
MINUTES OF ORDERS
| JUDGE MAKING ORDER: | Drummond J |
| DATE OF ORDER: | 3 September, |
| WHERE MADE: | Brisbane |
| THE COURT ORDERS THAT: |
The respondent be restrained from giving any effect to the deportation order until the trial of the action, or earlier order.
The costs of today are costs in the proceedings.
date to be fixed by the Registrar.
THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:
The applicant file and serve all the material upon which he intends to rely at the trial of this action by Thursday, 17 September, 1992.
The respondent file and serve all material upon which it intends to rely at the trial of this action by Thursday, 1 October, 1992.
Upon the applicant's solicitor filing an affidavit by Monday, 5 October, 1992 deposing to the fact that all steps directed to be taken have been attended to, the matter is to be set down for hearing on a
In the event that the applicant's solicitor does not file the affidavit referred to in direction 3 herein, by Monday, 5 October, 1992, the matter is to be listed for directions on Wednesday, 7 October, 1992 at 9.15 a.m..
Both parties have liberty to apply for further directions on notice to the other side.
The application for an order releasing the applicant from custody is adjourned to Monday, 7 September, 1992 at 2.15 p.m..
| NOTE : | |
| - | Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. |
| IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) | No. QG 132 of 1992 |
| QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY | 1 |
| GENERAL DIVISION | 1 |
BETIVEEN: CHARLES JAMES BARDEN
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION. LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AND ETHNIC AFFAIRSRespondent
| Coram : | Drummond J |
| Date: | 3 September, 1992 |
U: Brisbane
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JULIGMENT
On the basis of the material and the very brief argument canvassed before me today, I am of the view that there is a serious question to be tried as to whether the applicant is an illegal entrant, given that it seems that the
| entered Australia from New Zealand in August 1973, he filled | foundation for that proposition is that when Mr. Barden | ||
| out a passenger card and gave as his name an alias he was using, which is said to have been used not for any illegal purpose, but for a purpose associated with marital problems that he was involved with. There is therefore a real question to be tried as to whether or not the applicant filled out a card which was false or misleading in a material particular. | |||
| There is no suggestion that there are considerations that need to be noted in weighing the balance of convenience in favour of the respondent. However, there is a plain consideration that needs to be brought into account in carrying out that exercise in favour of the applicant, namely that he is facing imminent deportation, although no precise date has yet been set for that to take place. | |||
| A1 l the considerations indicate that an interlocutory order should be granted restraining the respondent from giving any effect to the deportation order until the trial of the action or earlier order. | |||
| I certify that this and the preceding page is a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of the Honourable Mr. | |||
| |||
|
- AGLC
- Barden, C.J. v Minister for Immigration, Local Government & Ethnic Affairs [1992] FCA 715
- Case
- [1992] FCA 715
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court's reasoning was based on the material presented and the arguments briefly canvassed. Drummond J found that there was indeed a serious question to be tried regarding Mr. Barden's status as an illegal entrant. The court considered the balance of convenience and noted that while there were no considerations favouring the respondent, there was a significant factor in favour of the applicant: the impending deportation. Drummond J concluded that an interlocutory order should be granted to restrain the respondent from enforcing the deportation order until the trial of the action or until further order by the court. This decision was based on the seriousness of the issue and the potential hardship to the applicant if deported before the matter was fully heard.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.