Lim v Minister for Immigration

[2020] FCCA 3330

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LIM & ORS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2020] FCCA 3330

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Administrative Appeals Tribunal – amended application in related proceedings Timberbox Pty Ltd v Minister for Immigration and Anor (PEG278/2019) dismissed – amended application dismissed.

First Applicant: SEE HIN LIM

Second Applicant: SHARENE SWEE LING CHUAH

Third Applicant: MILLEN SINYI LIM

Fourth Applicant: ELENA RENYI LIM

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number: PEG 447 of 2019

Judgment of: Judge Street

Hearing date: 7 December 2020

Date of Last Submission: 7 December 2020

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 7 December 2020

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr D Blades

Solicitors for the Applicant: Munro Doig Lawyers

Solicitors for the Respondents: Ms B Rayment
Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

1. The amended application is dismissed.

2. The first applicant and the second applicant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the amount of $5,000.00.

Date of order: 7 December 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

PEG 447 of 2019

SEE HIN LIM

First Applicant

SHARENE SWEE LING CHUAH

Second Applicant

MILLEN SINYI LIM

Third Applicant

ELENA RENYI LIM

Fourth Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. These are proceedings which were listed concurrently with the proceedings Timberbox Pty Ltd v Minister for Immigration and Anor (PEG278/2019) (“Timberbox proceedings”).

2. The first applicant is the primary applicant, the second applicant is his wife and the third and fourth applicants are his children in respect of whom there was an order made appointing a litigation guardian.

3. It was common ground that if the applicant succeeded in the Timberbox proceedings the applicants in these proceedings must succeed. It was equally common ground that if the applicant failed to succeed in the Timberbox proceedings the applicants in these proceedings must fail.

4. Unless the applicants succeeded in the Timberbox matter, no jurisdictional error could arise by reason of any mistake that was made by the Tribunal in the circumstances of this case. It was a correct concession by the parties.

5. As this Court has found that the applicant has failed in the Timberbox proceedings, the applicants must fail in these proceedings. Accordingly, the amended application is dismissed.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the transcript of the published oral reasons for judgment of Judge Street delivered in open Court on 7 December 2020 and the parties were sent a sealed copy of the Court’s orders

Associate:

Date: 12 February 2021