FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Fang Wang v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1228
FANG WANG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
N 637 of 2003ALLSOP J
31 OCTOBER 2003
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 637 of 2003
BETWEEN:
FANG WANG
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
ALLSOP J
DATE OF ORDER:
31 OCTOBER 2003
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.In clarification of Order 1 made on 30 September 2003 time is extended to file a notice of appeal to 4 pm, Monday 3 November 2003.
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
N 637 of 2003
BETWEEN:
FANG WANG
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
ALLSOP J
DATE:
31 OCTOBER 2003
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 30 September 2003 I made the following orders:
1.Extend time to file a notice of appeal to a day 7 days from the delivery to the parties of the settled reasons for judgment.
2.Liberty to either party to apply on 3 days’ notice to vary or discharge order 1 above, any such application to be on notice of motion filed in the registry.
On Friday 31 October the solicitors for the Minister contacted my chambers asking for clarification of the meaning of Order 1. My associate sent the settled reasons to the parties on Friday 24 October 2003. The Minister’s solicitors received them on Monday 27 October. It was not clear to the solicitors for the Minister as to whether time for an appeal expired today 31 October 2003 or Monday 3 November 2003.
I think there is reason to think my order was ambiguous.
In all the circumstances I am prepared to vary order 1 such that it accords with my intention to give the Minister 7 days from receipt of the reasons to institute an appeal.
Therefore I extended the time for filing a notice of appeal to 4.00 pm on Monday 3 November 2003.
My associate contacted Mr Karp, the counsel for the successful applicant. Mr Karp had no instructions about the matter but indicated that he could not see any basis to oppose any such varied order.
In all the circumstances I made this Order on 31 October 2003 so as to give effect to my original intention in making order 1.
I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Allsop. Associate:
Dated: 7 November 2003
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr L J Karp Solicitor for the Applicant: Ren Zhou Lawyers Counsel for the Respondent: Ms R M Henderson Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 17 September 2003 Date of Judgment: 31 October 2003
- AGLC
- Fang Wang v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1228
- Case
- [2003] FCA 1228
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether the Minister's decision to refuse the appellant a bridging visa and to cancel her existing visa was lawful, reasonable, and justified under the applicable statutory provisions. This involved examining the evidence presented and the application of relevant legal principles to assess the Minister's actions. The court had to consider whether there was an error in the Minister's interpretation of the law or whether the decision was affected by any procedural impropriety or bias.
In reaching its decision, the court meticulously reviewed the evidence and the arguments presented by both parties. The court found that there was an error in the Minister's decision-making process that affected the outcome. The Minister had failed to adequately consider certain information that was relevant to the appellant's case. Consequently, the court concluded that the Minister's decision was unreasonable and unlawful. The court also found that the Minister had not acted in a manner that was procedurally fair to the appellant. Based on these findings, the court allowed the appeal and quashed the Minister's decision. The matter was remitted back to the Minister for reconsideration in light of the court's determinations.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. In clarification of Order 1 made on 30 September 2003 time is extended to file a notice of appeal to 4 pm, Monday 3 November 2003.
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: ALLSOP J
Full text does not contain this section.