Braganza v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 318
MIGRATION – application for review to Migration Review Tribunal – requirement in s 347(1)(c) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) that application for review be accompanied by prescribed fee (if any) – application to waive prescribed fee lodged within prescribed period – waiver rejected after expiration of prescribed period - whether failure to pay prescribed fee within prescribed period renders application for review incompetent - whether primary judge erred in holding that late payment of fee necessarily precluded Tribunal from reviewing decision of Minister’s delegate.
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – whether purpose of Act that an act done in breach of provisions should be invalid – regard to be had to scope and object of whole statute – presumption that “absurd” result not intended – provision not to be construed so as to produce unworkable or impracticable result.
WORDS AND PHRASES – “accompanied by”; “if any”; “is properly made”; “no fee is payable”; “should not be paid”.
PETER BRAGANZA V MINSTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N791 OF 2000
WILCOX, WEINBERG AND STONE JJ 28 MARCH 2001 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N791 OF 2000
BETWEEN:
PETER BRAGANZA APPELLANT
AND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGES:
WILCOX, WEINBERG and STONE JJ
DATE OF ORDER:
28 MARCH 2001
WHERE MADE:
MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be allowed and the orders of the primary judge set aside.
2.The matter be remitted to the Migration Review Tribunal to be determined according to law.
3.The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal and of the proceeding before the primary judge.
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
N791 OF 2000
BETWEEN:
PETER BRAGANZA APPELLANT
AND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGES:
WILCOX, WEINBERG and STONE JJ
DATE:
28 MARCH 2001
PLACE:
MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
This is an appeal from an order of a judge of the Court dismissing an application for judicial review of three decisions. The appeal challenges the decision of the primary judge in relation to only one of those decisions: that the appellant’s failure to pay to the Migration Review Tribunal (“the MRT”), within the prescribed period, the prescribed application fee of $1,400, in…
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 Braganza v MIMA
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Braganza v MIMA [2001] FCA 318
Case
[2001] FCA 318
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Braganza v MIMA, the applicant, Mr Braganza, sought a review of a decision made by the Minister’s delegate under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The dispute arose from the respondent's refusal to waive the prescribed fee for the review application, which was submitted after the prescribed period. The primary judge upheld the respondent's decision, holding that the late payment of the fee precluded the Tribunal from reviewing the Minister’s delegate’s decision. Mr Braganza appealed this decision to the court.
The legal issues in the case revolved around the interpretation of section 347(1)(c) of the Migration Act, specifically the requirement for an application for review to be accompanied by the prescribed fee, if any, and whether the failure to pay the fee within the prescribed period rendered the application incompetent. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the primary judge erred in holding that the late payment of the fee necessarily precluded the Tribunal from reviewing the decision of the Minister’s delegate. The interpretation of phrases such as “accompanied by,” “if any,” “is properly made,” “no fee is payable,” and “should not be paid” was also critical to the case.
The court found that the primary judge had erred in his interpretation of the statutory provisions. It held that the purpose of the Act was not to render an act invalid merely because it was done in breach of its provisions. The court emphasised the importance of considering the scope and object of the whole statute and presumed that an absurd result was not intended. Consequently, the provision should not be construed in a way that would produce an unworkable or impracticable result. The court concluded that the failure to pay the fee within the prescribed period did not necessarily render the application incompetent, and the Tribunal was not precluded from reviewing the decision.
The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the primary judge were set aside. The matter was remitted to the Migration Review Tribunal for determination according to law. Additionally, the respondent was ordered to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal and of the proceeding before the primary judge.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be allowed and the orders of the primary judge set aside.
2. The matter be remitted to the Migration Review Tribunal to be determined according to law.
3. The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal and of the proceeding before the primary judge.