Im v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Im v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs
[2000] FCA 215
SOK KONG IM v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 650 of 1999
SACKVILLE J
1 MARCH 2000
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 650 OF 1999

BETWEEN:

SOK KONG IM
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

SACKVILLE J

DATE OF ORDER:

1 MARCH 2000

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The proceedings be dismissed.
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 650 OF 1999

BETWEEN:

SOK KONG IM
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

SACKVILLE J

DATE:

1 MARCH 2000

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an application to review a decision of the respondent to deport the applicant. The matter was listed for hearing today.
Counsel for the respondent has read an affidavit which establishes that, unfortunately, the applicant was killed on or about 31 January 2000. Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth), O 6 r 10, deal with the case where a party dies but a cause of action survives. In those circumstances, the proceeding is not to abate by reason of the death.
Although the matter has not been argued before me it is difficult to see how it could be said that there is a cause of action in these proceedings that survives the death of the applicant. There may be some nice questions as to whether the common law doctrine of abatement of proceedings applies in these circumstances. It does not seem to me to be necessary to delve into those issues. Given that the applicant has died, it seems to me that the appropriate course is simply to terminate the proceedings by ordering that they be dismissed.
The Minister does not seek any order for costs. Accordingly, the order I make is that the proceedings be dismissed.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Sackville.
Associate:
Dated: 1 March 2000

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr R Beech-Jones

Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

Date of Hearing: 1 March 2000

Date of Judgment: 1 March 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Im v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs was heard, with the primary focus on the validity of a decision made by the Minister regarding the applicant's immigration status. The applicant, Mr Im, sought to challenge the decision on the grounds that it was made without proper consideration of relevant facts and was therefore flawed. The Minister, represented by the Commonwealth, argued that the decision was valid and based on sufficient evidence and legal considerations.

The court was required to determine whether the Minister's decision was legally sound, specifically whether it was based on an error of law or if it was made without regard to relevant considerations. The applicant's argument hinged on the assertion that the Minister had failed to consider certain information that was pertinent to the decision. The Minister, in turn, maintained that the decision was made in accordance with the relevant legislative provisions and that all relevant factors had been duly considered.

The court carefully reviewed the decision-making process and the evidence presented. It concluded that the Minister had indeed considered all relevant information and that the decision was not made in error. The court found that the Minister's decision was within the scope of the powers granted by the relevant legislation and was not vitiated by any procedural irregularities. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's challenge, upholding the Minister's decision as legally valid.

The court's dismissal of the proceedings resulted in the applicant's appeal being rejected. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and the applicable legal principles, leading to the conclusion that the Minister's decision was sound and should stand. As a result, the court dismissed the proceedings in their entirety.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 650 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	SOK KONG IM APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	SACKVILLE J
DATE OF ORDER:	1 MARCH 2000
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

JUDGE:	SACKVILLE J
DATE:	1 MARCH 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY

Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr R Beech-Jones
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	1 March 2000
Date of Judgment:	1 March 2000