FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Hopkins v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCAFC 36
File numbers: NSD 108 of 2020
NSD 109 of 2020Judges: LOGAN, WIGNEY AND GLEESON JJ Date of judgment: 6 March 2020 Cases cited: Hopkins v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCAFC 33 Date of hearing: 12 February 2020 Registry: New South Wales Division: General Division National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Category: No Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 1 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr O Jones Solicitor for the Applicant: Adrian Joel & Co Solicitors Counsel for the Respondent: Mr P Knowles with Ms S Danne Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore ORDERS
NSD 108 of 2020 BETWEEN: ANTHONY MARK HOPKINS
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGES:
LOGAN, WIGNEY AND GLEESON JJ
DATE OF ORDER:
6 MARCH 2020
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application be dismissed.
2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application, as fixed by the Registrar if not agreed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
ORDERS
NSD 109 of 2020 BETWEEN: JAMES THOMAS FERREIRA
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGES:
LOGAN, WIGNEY AND GLEESON JJ
DATE OF ORDER:
6 MARCH 2020
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application be dismissed.
2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application, as fixed by the Registrar if not agreed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
For the reasons given in Hopkins v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCAFC 33 these two applications must be dismissed with costs.
I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justices Logan, Wigney and Gleeson. Associate:
Dated: 6 March 2020
- AGLC
- Hopkins v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCAFC 36
- Case
- [2020] FCAFC 36
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered whether the Minister's decision to cancel the visa was based on proper consideration of all relevant factors and whether the process adhered to the principles of procedural fairness. The applicant argued that there were procedural errors in the decision-making process which rendered the decision unlawful. However, the court found that the decision-maker had properly exercised their discretion and that the process was fair, leading to the conclusion that the Minister's decision was lawful.
In light of the above, the court dismissed the application. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the application, as fixed by the Registrar if not agreed. This outcome highlights the importance of procedural fairness in administrative decision-making and the rigorous scrutiny applied by the courts in reviewing such decisions. The final orders, as noted, were that the application be dismissed and that the applicant pay the respondent's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application, as fixed by the Registrar if not agreed.
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.