FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs
[2001] FCA 94OLGA DRANICHNIKOV v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND MS RYNEETE GAULT in her capacity as an officer of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs AND MR KEVIN DUFFY in his capacity as an officer of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Q 89 of 2000
DOWSETT J
29 JANUARY 2001
BRISBANE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
Q 89 OF 2000
BETWEEN:
OLGA DRANICHNIKOV
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENTMS RYNEETE GAULT in her capacity as an officer of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
SECOND RESPONDENTMR KEVIN DUFFY in his capacity as an officer of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
THIRD RESPONDENTJUDGE:
DOWSETT J
DATE OF ORDER:
29 JANUARY 2001
WHERE MADE:
BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
Q 89 OF 2000
BETWEEN:
OLGA DRANICHNIKOV
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENTMS RYNEETE GAULT in her capacity as an officer of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
SECOND RESPONDENTMR KEVIN DUFFY in his capacity as an officer of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
THIRD RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
DOWSETT J
DATE:
29 JANUARY 2001
PLACE:
BRISBANE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
There is no reason why costs should not follow the event. I order that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings. As to the impecuniosity of the applicant, that is a matter which may or may not be treated as relevant by the Minister in determining whether or not to enforce the order.
I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett. Associate:
Dated: 15 February 2001
The Applicant appeared in person. Solicitor for the Respondent: Mr J Bishop, Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 29 January 2001 Date of Judgment: 29 January 2001
- AGLC
- Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 94
- Case
- [2001] FCA 94
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined whether the Minister had complied with the requirements of procedural fairness, including providing the applicant with an opportunity to respond to allegations against him. Additionally, the court had to determine if the Minister's decision to cancel the visa was based on a correct application of the relevant statutory provisions. The Minister maintained that the decision was lawful and based on proper consideration of the evidence.
The court found that the Minister had indeed afforded the applicant procedural fairness by allowing him to respond to the allegations. Furthermore, the court concluded that the Minister's decision to cancel the visa was within his statutory authority and correctly applied the law. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed. As a result, the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings.
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
Established by: DOWSETT J
Full text does not contain this section.