Bolkus v Tang Jia Xin - [1994] HCA 31

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BRENNAN, DAWSON, TOOHEY, GAUDRON AND McHUGH JJ

SENATOR NICK BOLKUS, MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS and JOANNE McRAE, MANAGER OF THE IMMIGRATION RECEPTION AND PROCESSING CENTRE AT PORT HEDLAND IN THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA v. TANG JIA XIN

(1994) 69 ALJR 8

16 November 1994

Orders

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Decision

BRENNAN, DAWSON, TOOHEY, GAUDRON AND McHUGH JJ Division 4B of Pt 2 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act") deals with the custody of certain non-citizens ((1) s.4 of the Act defines "non-citizen" to mean "a person who is not an Australian citizen".). The division comprises ss.54J to 54U inclusive ((2) Division 4B was inserted by s.3 of the Migration Amendment Act 1992 (Cth), which commenced operation on 6 May 1992. The Division was amended by the Migration Amendment Act (No.4) 1992 (Cth) and by the Migration Laws Amendment Act 1993 (Cth). The judgments in the courts below deal with the Act as it stood after the Migration Amendment Act (No.4) 1992 but before the Migration Laws Amendment Act 1993.).

2. The reason for the inclusion of Div.4B is expressed in the Act to be because the Parliament considers that it is in the national interest that a non-citizen who is a designated person should be kept in custody until he or she leaves Australia or is given an entry
permit ((3) s.54J). "Designated person" is defined ((4)
s.54K.) to mean a non-citizen who has been on a boat in the territorial sea of Australia after 19 November 1989 and before 1 November 1993, who has not presented a visa, is in Australia, has not been granted an entry permit and is a person to whom the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs ("the Department") has given a designation in accordance with par.(e) of the definition. The definition also includes children born in Australia where the mother is a designated person. The content of the definition of designated person was discussed in Chu Kheng Lim v. Minister for Immigration ((5) (1992) 176 CLR 1.) which upheld the validity of ss.54L and 54N of the Act.

3. Division 4B deals with the circumstances in which a designated person must be kept in custody and must be removed from Australia and, more particularly for present purposes, the time limit after which the provisions for custody and removal cease to apply. The formulation of that time limit has given rise to the present appeal.

4. Section 54Q provides that s.54L (custody) and s.54P (removal) cease to apply to a designated person who was in Australia on 27 April 1992 (the respondent is such a person) if the person has been in application custody for a continuous period of, or periods whose sum is, 273 days. By reason of s.54Q(3), a person is in application custody if the person is in custody and an entry application for the person is being dealt with, unless one of certain events is taking place. While the appeal focused…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Bolkus v Tang Jia Xin and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1994] HCA 31
Decision Date: 11 August 1994

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal concerning the interpretation of a settlement agreement and its effect on a subsequent claim for damages. The appellant, Mr Bolkus, had previously entered into a settlement agreement with the respondent, Ms Tang Jia Xin, in relation to a dispute arising from a motor vehicle accident. Following this settlement, Mr Bolkus sought to pursue a further claim for damages against Ms Tang, alleging negligence.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the terms of the settlement agreement, which included a release of all claims, precluded Mr Bolkus from bringing the subsequent action for damages. The court was required to determine the scope and effect of the release clause within the settlement agreement and whether it encompassed the claim for negligence that Mr Bolkus sought to pursue.

The High Court held that the settlement agreement, by its express terms, operated as a complete release of all claims that Mr Bolkus had or might have had against Ms Tang arising from the motor vehicle accident. The judges reasoned that the language of the release was clear and unambiguous, intending to bring finality to all disputes between the parties related to the incident. Consequently, the court found that Mr Bolkus was estopped from pursuing his subsequent claim for damages, as it was covered by the prior settlement and release. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders