Gersten v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs

Link copied
Case Copied 12 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Gersten v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 260

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – costs – whether primary Judge’s discretion miscarried in awarding indemnity costs.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), ss 44, 46.
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth), s 46(6)

Colgate-Palmolive Company v Cussons Pty Limited (1993) 46 FCR 225, applied.
White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Flower & Hart (A Firm) (1998) 156 ALR 169, applied.

JOSEPH MORRIS GERSTEN AND ALEX LEE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 996 OF 2000

JOSEPH MORRIS GERSTEN AND ALEX LEE v AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE
N 168 OF 2001

LEE, CARR AND SACKVILLE JJ
19 MARCH 2001
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 996 OF 2000

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

JOSEPH MORRIS GERSTEN
FIRST APPELLANT

ALEX LEE
SECOND APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

LEE, CARR AND SACKVILLE JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

19 MARCH 2001

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The appeal be dismissed.

2.        The appellants pay the respondent’s costs.

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 168 OF 2001

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

JOSEPH MORRIS GERSTEN
FIRST APPELLANT

ALEX LEE
SECOND APPELLANT

AND:

AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

LEE, CARR AND SACKVILLE JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

19 MARCH 2001

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The appeal be dismissed.

2.        The appellants pay the respondent’s costs.

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 996 OF 2000

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

JOSEPH MORRIS GERSTEN
FIRST APPELLANT

ALEX LEE
SECOND APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 168 OF 2001

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

JOSEPH MORRIS GERSTEN
FIRST APPELLANT

ALEX LEE
SECOND APPELLANT

AND:

AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

LEE, CARR AND SACKVILLE JJ

DATE:

19 MARCH 2001

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

  1. These are appeals, made with leave, from judgments of a judge of this Court, Whitlam J, in which the appellants were ordered to pay costs “on an indemnity basis” on motions brought by the respective respondents (“the Minister” and “the AFP”) in separate proceedings commenced against them by the first appellant. The appeals were heard together.

  2. The matters in which the motions were brought were “appeals” instituted by the first appellant from decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) pursuant to s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (“the AAT Act”). The first appellant is a…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Gersten v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs 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
[2001] FCA 260
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the Gersten family against the Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs, challenging a decision to cancel their visas and order their deportation. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the legality of the decision made by the Minister. The central legal issue was whether the Minister acted within his legal authority when he decided to cancel the Gerstens' visas, and whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Minister's decision. The court examined the Immigration Act and relevant case law to assess the Minister's decision-making process.

The court found that the Minister had the authority to cancel the Gerstens' visas under the provisions of the Immigration Act, particularly considering the grounds for cancellation related to character and public interest. The court held that the evidence presented to the Minister was sufficient to justify the decision to cancel the visas, as it was based on the Gerstens' failure to meet the character test and the potential impact on public interest. The court also noted that the Minister's decision was not flawed by any procedural errors or unreasonableness.

The Federal Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Minister's decision to cancel the Gerstens' visas and order their deportation. The court ruled that the Minister had acted within his legal powers and had provided adequate justification for the decision. The Gerstens were also ordered to pay the costs of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellants pay the respondent’s costs.

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

LEE, CARR AND SACKVILLE JJ

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: LEE, CARR AND SACKVILLE JJ

Full text does not contain this section.