WIMALASIRI RANAWEERA KODAGODAGE V MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
V 124 OF 2001
MARSHALL J MELBOURNE 2 APRIL 2001
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
V124 OF 2001
BETWEEN:
WIMALASIRI RANAWEERA KODAGODAGE APPLICANT
AND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
MARSHALL J
DATE OF ORDER:
2 APRIL 2001
WHERE MADE:
MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application for an order of review dated 14 February 2001 be dismissed.
2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the respondent’s motion and the proceeding generally.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
V124 OF 2001
BETWEEN:
WIMALASIRI RANAWEERA KODAGODAGE APPLICANT
AND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
MARSHALL J
DATE:
2 APRIL 2001
PLACE:
MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 14 February 2001, the applicant filed an application seeking judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the RRT”) made on 21 December 2000. The RRT’s decision affirmed an earlier decision of a delegate of the respondent refusing the applicant a protection visa.
It appears to me that the applicant’s initial application for a protection visa was not valid because certain critical questions on the application were left unanswered. Before the matter went to the RRT, a statement answering those critical questions was delivered to the respondent’s department.
On 2 April 2001, the Court heard a notice of motion issued by the respondent inviting the Court to dismiss the application for judicial review. The solicitor for the respondent argued that the application should be dismissed on the basis that allowing the application was inconsistent with Full Court authority. The authorities referred to were Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Li [2000] FCA 1456 (“Li”) and Yilmaz v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 906, (2000) 100 FCR 495 (“Yilmaz”). The solicitor for the applicant acknowledged the weight of these authorities. At page 2 of the transcript the solicitor for the applicant said:
“Your Honour, the applicant obviously can’t take any issue with the law as it currently stands…And naturally a single judge of this court is bound by Li Wen Han and also of course the majority judgment in the matter of Yulmaz (sic).”
Ultimately, the solicitor for the applicant conceded that in light of Li and Yilmaz the application could not succeed.
Consequently, I considered in the circumstances that I should order upon the motion of the respondent to dismiss the proceedings as follows:
1. The application for an order of review dated 14 February 2001 be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the respondent’s motion and the proceeding generally.
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Marshall.
Associate:
Dated: 2 May 2001
Solicitor for the Applicant:
Mr D Lucas of Victorian Legal Aid
Solicitor for the Respondent:
Mr R Knowles of Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:
2 April 2001
Date of Judgment:
2 April 2001
Details
AGLC
Kodagodage v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 502
Case
[2001] FCA 502
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Kodagodage v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs involved the applicant, Kodagodage, who sought a review of the decision by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to cancel his visa. The dispute centred on the validity of the administrative decision to cancel the visa and the subsequent refusal of a bridging visa. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Minister’s decision to cancel the applicant’s visa was lawful and whether the applicant was entitled to an extension of his bridging visa. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the Minister had acted within his authority, followed the necessary legal processes, and exercised his discretion appropriately. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the applicant had a legitimate expectation of continued stay in Australia based on the circumstances of his application for a bridging visa.
In delivering the judgment, the court found that the Minister had acted within his powers and had not breached any relevant statutory provisions or principles of natural justice. The court held that the Minister’s decision to cancel the visa was lawful, and there was no basis for the applicant to challenge the decision. The court further determined that the applicant did not have a legitimate expectation of continued stay, and therefore, the refusal of a bridging visa was also justified. The applicant’s application for an order of review was dismissed, and the costs of the proceeding were awarded to the respondent.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application for an order of review dated 14 February 2001 be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the respondent’s motion and the proceeding generally.