FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Elara v Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (No 2) [2018] FCA 265
File number: WAD 245 of 2017 Judge: BARKER J Date of judgment: 23 February 2018 Catchwords: MIGRATION – application dismissed Cases cited: Falzon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] HCA 2 Date of hearing: 22 December 2017 Registry: Western Australia Division: General Division National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 3 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr WF Markwell Counsel for the Respondent: Mr PJ Hannan Solicitor for the Applicant: Sparke Helmore Lawyers ORDERS
WAD 245 of 2017 BETWEEN: DAVID JOHN ELARA
Applicant
AND: ASSISTANT MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
Respondent
JUDGE:
BARKER J
DATE OF ORDER:
23 FEBRUARY 2018
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application be dismissed.
2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs as agreed or assessed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BARKER J:
I indicated in my reasons for judgment in this matter on 22 December 2017 that, subject to the decision of the High Court of Australia in Falzon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] HCA 2, I would dismiss this matter.
The judgment in Falzon was handed down by the High Court of Australia on 7 February 2018. The appeal was dismissed.
The parties to this matter have agreed, in those circumstances, that final orders should be made under the following terms (which orders were made on 23 February 2018).
(1)The application be dismissed.
(2)The applicant pay the respondent’s costs as agreed or assessed.
I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Barker. Associate:
Dated: 8 March 2018
- AGLC
- Elara v Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (No 2) [2018] FCA 265
- Case
- [2018] FCA 265
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine whether the decision was legally sound and whether it adhered to the principles of natural justice. This involved examining whether the Minister considered all relevant information, including the information that Elara claimed was overlooked. The court also had to assess whether the decision-making process was fair and whether there were any procedural errors.
The court found that the Minister's decision was not flawed. The court held that the Minister had considered all relevant information and that the decision-making process was fair. The court rejected Elara's contention that the Minister failed to consider particular information, finding that the Minister had adequately taken into account all relevant matters. The court further held that there were no procedural errors that would render the decision unlawful. Consequently, the court dismissed the application and ordered Elara to pay the Assistant Minister's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs as agreed or assessed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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.