BLUM -v- BOOTHMAN [2014] WASC 452

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2014] WASC 452
Published:	02/12/2014
Case No:	CIV:2517/2014	Heard:	26 NOVEMBER 2014
Coram:	MITCHELL J	Delivered:	26/11/14
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	BLUM KIERAN BOOTHMAN
Catchwords:	Judicial review No utility Refused on discretionary grounds
Legislation:	Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), s 36
Case References:	Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission [1992] HCA 10; (1992) 175 CLR 564 Perder Investments Pty Ltd v Elmer [1991] FCA 529; (1991) 31 FCR 201 Rayney v AW [2009] WASCA 203 Re Carey; Ex parte Exclude Holdings Pty Ltd [2006] WASCA 219; (2006) 32 WAR 501 Saldanha v Fujitsu Australia Ltd [No 2] [2011] WASC 360 Varney v Parole Board of Western Australia [2000] WASCA 393; (2000) 23 WAR 187

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : BLUM -v- BOOTHMAN [2014] WASC 452 CORAM : MITCHELL J HEARD : 26 NOVEMBER 2014 DELIVERED : 26 NOVEMBER 2014 PUBLISHED : 2 DECEMBER 2014 FILE NO/S : CIV 2517 of 2014 BETWEEN : BLUM

Applicant

AND

KIERAN BOOTHMAN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Judicial review - No utility - Refused on discretionary grounds

Legislation:

Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), s 36

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : In person

Respondent : No appearance

Solicitors:

Applicant : In person

Respondent : No appearance

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission [1992] HCA 10; (1992) 175 CLR 564
Perder Investments Pty Ltd v Elmer [1991] FCA 529; (1991) 31 FCR 201
Rayney v AW [2009] WASCA 203
Re Carey; Ex parte Exclude Holdings Pty Ltd [2006] WASCA 219; (2006) 32 WAR 501
Saldanha v Fujitsu Australia Ltd [No 2] [2011] WASC 360
Varney v Parole Board of Western Australia [2000] WASCA 393; (2000) 23 WAR 187

MITCHELL J

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 26 November 2014 and has been edited from the transcript.)

Factual and procedural background

1 On 31 January 2011, the Magistrates Court at Perth issued a violence restraining order (Order)against the applicant, for the benefit of the applicant's former wife and children. The Order was expressed to be a final order. The applicant has deposed that he was served with the Order. I infer from the terms of the applicant's affidavit that service occurred at about the time the Order was made.

2 By s 16(5)(a)(ii) of the Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA), the Order ceased to be in force two years after it was served on the applicant: ie, around 31 January 2013. The applicant's evidence is that the term of the Order was never extended.

3 The applicant says that he did not initially understand the Order to be a final order. Rather, he thought that, at the proceedings held on 31 January 2011, he consented, through his counsel, to the modification of an interim violence restraining order. He says that…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Blum v Boothman

Details

AGLC: Blum v Boothman [2014] WASC 452
Case: [2014] WASC 452
Decision Date: 2 DECEMBER 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court, Blum sought judicial review of a decision by Boothman, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, to refuse him entry to Australia. Blum, an Australian citizen, sought to bring his family into the country under the Migration Act 1958. The Minister refused the application on discretionary grounds, asserting that it was not in the public interest to admit the family.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Minister's decision to refuse entry to Blum's family on discretionary grounds was legally sound. Specifically, the Court examined whether the Minister's decision was made according to law, whether it was reasonable, and whether the Minister had considered all relevant and no irrelevant matters in making the decision.

The Court found that the Minister's decision was legally sound. It held that the Minister had properly exercised the discretion conferred by the Act, taking into account all relevant considerations. The Court was satisfied that the Minister had appropriately weighed the public interest factors against the personal circumstances of Blum and his family. The Court also found that the decision was not so unreasonable as to be unjust or capricious. Therefore, the Court dismissed Blum's application for judicial review.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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.