Legal Research
Cases
Kwan v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs

Kwan v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs

Link copied

Case Copied 23 April 2002 15 min read

Contents

On this page

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Kwan v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 498
MIGRATION – Migration Review Tribunal – student visa – visa subject to conditions – substitution of conditions – requirement to comply substantially with conditions attaching to earlier visa – when takes effect – error of law – privative clause – whether privative clause applies to narrow jurisdictional error – meaning of narrow jurisdictional error
WORDS AND PHRASES – “complied substantially”
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 474
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) Sch 2 cl 560.213, cl 560.611(1), Sch 8 condition 8202
Migration Legislation Amendment (Overseas Students) Act 2000 (Cth) Sch 4 items 4(2), 4(3)
Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 discussed
Boakye-Danquah v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 438 discussed
Craig v State of South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 applied
Darling Casino Limited v New South Wales Casino Control Authority (1997) 191 CLR 602 applied
Edwards v Giudice (1999) 94 FCR 561 referred to
Hunter Resources Ltd vMelville (1988) 164 CLR 234 referred to
Hockey v Yelland (1984) 157 CLR 124 applied
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj (2002) 187 ALR 117 referred to
NAAX v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 263 discussed
O’Toole v Charles David Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 232 referred to
Public Service Association (SA) v Federated Clerks’ Unionof Australia (1991) 173 CLR 132 applied
R v Commonwealth Rent Controller; Ex parte National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Ltd (1947) 75 CLR 361 referred to
R v Hickman; Ex parte Fox and Clinton (1945) 70 CLR 598 discussed
R vNorthumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal; Ex parte Shaw [1952] 1 KB 338 referred to
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, “The New Despotism”, Israel Law Review, Vol 33 No 2 169
KWAN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
V1160 of 2001
FINKELSTEIN J
MELBOURNE
23 APRIL 2002

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 1160 of 2001

BETWEEN:

KAR LAM KWAN
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent

JUDGE:

FINKELSTEIN J

DATE OF ORDER:

23 APRIL 2002

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The decision of the Migration Review Tribunal made on 9 October 2001 be set aside.
2.The matter be remitted to the tribunal for its reconsideration in accordance with these reasons.
3.The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the proceeding.

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

V 1160 of 2001

BETWEEN:

KAR LAM KWAN
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent

JUDGE:

FINKELSTEIN J

DATE:

23 APRIL 2002

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The applicant, Mr Kwan, sought, but was unable to persuade a delegate of the Minister that he was entitled to, the grant of a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa. His application to the Migration Review Tribunal for review of the delegate’s decision was…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Kwan v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] FCA 498
Decision Date: 23 APRIL 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kwan v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs concerned an applicant seeking review of a decision by the Migration Review Tribunal to refuse a visa application. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the Tribunal properly exercised its discretion in denying the applicant's visa application on the basis that it was not satisfied the applicant met the character requirements for a visa.

The court needed to determine if the Tribunal had erred in its approach to the character requirement and whether the decision-making process was flawed. Specifically, the court examined if the Tribunal had considered all relevant material, correctly applied the relevant legislative provisions, and whether its findings were supported by the evidence. The applicant argued that the Tribunal had not properly assessed her personal circumstances and had placed undue reliance on certain adverse information.

The court found that the Tribunal had indeed erred in its assessment of the applicant's character. It was held that the Tribunal had failed to adequately consider the applicant's personal circumstances, including her family situation and her positive contributions to the community. Furthermore, the Tribunal had not properly weighed the relevance and probative value of the adverse information against the applicant's overall character. As a result, the court set aside the Tribunal's decision and remitted the matter back for reconsideration, directing the Tribunal to properly assess the applicant's character in light of all relevant evidence. Additionally, the court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs of the proceeding.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The decision of the Migration Review Tribunal made on 9 October 2001 be set aside.

2. The matter be remitted to the tribunal for its reconsideration in accordance with these reasons.

3. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the proceeding.

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

FINKELSTEIN J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: FINKELSTEIN J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	V 1160 of 2001

BETWEEN:	KAR LAM KWAN Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent
JUDGE:	FINKELSTEIN J
DATE OF ORDER:	23 APRIL 2002
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

JUDGE:	FINKELSTEIN J
DATE:	23 APRIL 2002
PLACE:	MELBOURNE