Halal Restaurant Supplies Pty Ltd v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (No 2)

Case [2020] FCA 1660


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Halal Restaurant Supplies Pty Ltd v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2020] FCA 1660  

Appeal from:

Halal Restaurant Supples Pty Ltd v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2020] FCCA 956

Halal Restaurant Supples Pty Ltd v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2020] FCCA 958

File numbers: QUD 151 of 2020
QUD 152 of 2020
Judgment of: ALLSOP CJ
Date of judgment: 16 November 2020
Cases cited: Halal Restaurant Supplies Pty Ltd v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 1589
Division: General Division
Registry: Queensland
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Number of paragraphs: 4
Date of hearing: 16 November 2020
Solicitor for the Appellant: Mr R Tien of Guru Legal
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Ms B Rayment of Sparke Helmore
Counsel for the Second Respondent: The Second Respondent filed a submitting notice save as to costs

ORDERS

QUD 151 of 2020
BETWEEN:

HALAL RESTAURANT SUPPLIES PTY LTD

Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

ALLSOP CJ

DATE OF ORDER:

16 NOVEMBER 2020

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed as incompetent.

2.The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $1,500.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


ORDERS

QUD 152 of 2020
BETWEEN:

HALAL RESTAURANT SUPPLIES PTY LTD

Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

ALLSOP CJ

DATE OF ORDER:

16 NOVEMBER 2020

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed as incompetent.

2.The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $1,500.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from the transcript)

ALLSOP CJ

  1. In these matters I delivered a short judgment on 2 November 2020 identifying why these appeals were incompetent.  I stood the matters over for the limited purpose set out in [6] of Halal Restaurant Supplies Pty Ltd v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 1589.

  2. The appellant in each matter indicated through its representative Mr Tien today that they propose to seek relief in the original jurisdiction under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) against the orders made by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, being the orders from which the appeals that are incompetent were filed.

  3. That means that the orders today in each matter should be: first, that the appeal be dismissed as incompetent.  The second order should deal with costs of the first respondent in each matter.  I was initially minded to carve out room for each present appellant to move any relevant costs to the original jurisdiction matter in due course.  Having heard from the Minister’s representative Ms Rayment, on reflection I do not consider that course to be appropriate.  Both sides agree that the interests of justice would be met by a lump sum costs order putting an end to the costs issue.  The parties are agreed that the appropriate amount of costs up to 2 November 2020 was $1,250 in each matter.  Ms Rayment has been brought to a further case management hearing to finalise the matters and seeks an order for $1,500 in each matter, which I do not think is unreasonable.  In those circumstances, the costs order will be that the appellant pay the first respondent’s costs in each matter in the sum of $1,500.

  4. Thus the orders of the Court in each matter are:

    1.The appeal be dismissed as incompetent.

    2.The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $1,500.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Chief Justice Allsop.

Associate:

Dated:       17 November 2020

Details
AGLC
Halal Restaurant Supplies Pty Ltd v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2020] FCA 1660
Case
[2020] FCA 1660
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents, including the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, brought proceedings against the appellant, Halal Restaurant Supplies Pty Ltd, in the Federal Court. The matter concerned a review of a decision to cancel the appellant’s business visa on the basis that it was not genuinely operating as a business, and instead, was being used as a cover for unlawful activities. The appeal was brought from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the Migration Act 1958 and the relevant regulations. Specifically, the court had to consider the meaning of "genuinely operating as a business" and whether the Tribunal had erred in its interpretation of the evidence presented. The court also needed to determine if the Tribunal had properly exercised its discretion in cancelling the visa and if the decision was otherwise flawed.

The court found that the Tribunal had correctly interpreted the relevant provisions of the Migration Act and the regulations. It held that the Tribunal had not erred in finding that the appellant was not genuinely operating as a business, as there was no evidence to support the appellant’s claim that it was a legitimate business. The court further held that the Tribunal had properly exercised its discretion in cancelling the visa, and there was no error in the decision-making process. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as incompetent, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondents’ costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed as incompetent.

2. The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $1,500.

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.