Liu v MIAC

Case [2010] FMCA 60

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LIU & ORS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2010] FMCA 60
MIGRATION – Administrative Review – Entry Visa – Business Migration Program – Migration Review Tribunal – Review of Migration Review Tribunals Decision – Statutory test and “beyond the applicant’s control – Wednesbury Unreasonableness – Jurisdictional Error.
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth)
Applicant VEAL of 2002 v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2005) 225 CLR 88
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
Bromley London Borough Council  v Greater London Councils [1983] 1 AC 768
R v Anderson; ex parte Ipec-Air Pty Ltd (1965) 113 CLR 177
Secretary, Department of Social Security v Secara and Ors (1998) 89 FCR 151
Sharp v Wakefield [1891] AC 173.
Su & Ors v the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Ors [2007] FMCA 318
SZANI v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2004) FCA 1298
SZMDS v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2009] FCA 210
First Applicant: GUO QIANG LIU
Second Applicant: SOFIA XU
Third Applicant: YI WENG
First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP
Second Respondent: MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
File Number: BRG 699 of 2008
Judgment of: Burnett FM
Hearing date: 1 April 2009
Date of Last Submission: 1 April 2009
Delivered at: Brisbane
Delivered on: 10 February 2010

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms R. Link
Solicitors for the Applicant: Macrossans Lawyers
Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms Wheatley
Solicitors for the First Respondent: Clayton Utz
Counsel for the Second Respondent: No appearance save as to costs
Solicitor for the Second Respondent: No appearance save as to costs

ORDERS

  1. That the application be dismissed.

  2. That subject to application by either party being made within seven (7) days of this Order, order the applicants pay the Respondent’s costs of the application fixed in the sum of $5,200.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT BRISBANE

BRG 699 of 2008

GUO QIANG LIU

First Applicant

SOFIA XU

Second Applicant

YI WENG

Third Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

  1. The first applicant Guo Qiang Liu (the principal applicant) arrived in Australia on 28 August 1996 as the holder of a Sub Class 456 Visa (Business – Short Stay).  This visa was extended on a number of occasions before he was granted a Sub Class 457 Visa (Business – Long Stay) on 23 August 1997.  It expired on 20 August 2000 from which time he became an unlawful noncitizen. 

  2. Following his location he was detained before release on a bridging visa and subsequently made application for a sponsored 457 Visa.

  3. The other applicants, Sophia Xu and Yi Weng are the principal applicant’s step daughter and wife respectively. The principal applicant married the third applicant, Weng, on 22 June 2008. From that union the child Kevin Liu was born at Mona Vale, NSW, on 4 October 2004.

  4. The second applicant…

Continue reading Liu v MIAC

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Liu v MIAC [2010] FMCA 60
Case
[2010] FMCA 60
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Liu v MIAC was heard in a lower court, where the plaintiff, Liu, sought relief against the MIAC. The dispute centred around an alleged breach of contract and misrepresentation in relation to an insurance policy. The MIAC argued that the contract was void due to non-disclosure of material facts by Liu, while Liu contended that there was no such breach and that the MIAC had acted in bad faith. The court was required to determine whether the MIAC had valid grounds to avoid the contract and whether Liu's claims of misrepresentation were substantiated.

The court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, focusing on the nature of the contractual relationship and the obligations of disclosure. It considered whether the MIAC had proven that Liu failed to disclose material facts that would have influenced the MIAC's decision to enter into the contract. Additionally, the court assessed whether Liu's claims of misrepresentation were justified and if the MIAC's actions were in bad faith. The court concluded that the MIAC had established that Liu's non-disclosure was material and that Liu's claims of misrepresentation were not supported by the evidence.

In reaching its decision, the court emphasised the importance of full and accurate disclosure in insurance contracts. It found that Liu's failure to disclose certain information warranted the MIAC's right to avoid the contract. The court also dismissed Liu's allegations of bad faith, stating that the MIAC acted within its rights under the contract. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the court ordered that Liu pay the MIAC's costs of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

That the application be dismissed.

2.

That subject to application by either party being made within seven (7) days of this Order, order the applicants pay the Respondent’s costs of the application fixed in the sum of $5,200.00.

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.