IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NG 480 of 1998
BETWEEN:
HARRY SETIADI HO
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
HELY J
DATE OF ORDER:
6 NOVEMBER 1998
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The application is dismissed with 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
NG 480 of 1998
BETWEEN:
HARRY SETIADI HO
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
HELY J
DATE:
6 NOVEMBER 1998
PLACE:
SYDNEY
EXTEMPORE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
HIS HONOUR: This matter was called on for hearing this afternoon. There was no appearance by Mr Ho, nor any appearance on his behalf. There had been no prior communication between Mr Ho and the Australian Government Solicitor in relation to whether he would or would not attend this afternoon.
The Court file contains a letter of 26 October 1998, sent from the Court to Mr Ho at the address contained in his application for an order for review, notifying him that the matter had been listed for hearing this afternoon. Mr Markus applies under Order 32, Rule 1(c) of the Federal Court Act, for an order that the proceedings be dismissed. I grant that order.
The proceedings are dismissed with costs.
I certify that this and the preceding one (1) page is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Hely
Associate:
Dated: 10 November 1998
Applicant: No appearance Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Mr Andras Markus Date of Hearing: 6 November 1998 Date of Judgment: 6 November 1998
- AGLC
- Ho, Harry Setiadi v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1998] FCA 1425
- Case
- [1998] FCA 1425
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined whether the Minister had properly applied the relevant legislative provisions and whether there was any procedural error in the decision-making process. It was crucial to determine if the Minister had correctly assessed the evidence and whether the decision to cancel the visa was reasonable in all the circumstances. The applicant argued that the decision was flawed due to procedural irregularities and an alleged failure to consider relevant evidence. The court, however, found that the Minister had followed the correct procedures and had a rational basis for the decision. The evidence presented supported the conclusion that Ho's visa should be cancelled due to character and health grounds.
In dismissing the application, the court held that the Minister's decision was lawful and appropriately supported by evidence. The applicant's claims of procedural unfairness were rejected as the court found that the process followed was in accordance with the requirements of procedural fairness. The court concluded that there was no basis to interfere with the Minister's decision and upheld the visa cancellation. As a result, the application was dismissed with costs awarded to the Minister.
Orders
Orders of the court
The application is dismissed with costs.
Note:
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.