Lum v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

The case of Lum v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs involved an applicant seeking an interlocutory injunction to prevent the Minister from deporting him. The applicant was out of time to seek a review of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal's decision, which had affirmed a decision to cancel his visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The applicant sought an extension of time to seek review of the Tribunal's decision. The matter was heard by Justice Reeves in the Federal Court.

The court was required to determine whether there was a serious question to be tried in the applicant's challenge to the Tribunal's decision and whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction. The court had regard to the background facts, including the applicant's criminal history and the decision of the Tribunal that there was no other reason to revoke the cancellation of his visa. The court also noted that the applicant's removal from Australia would prevent him from participating in any future proceedings.

The court found that there was a serious question to be tried in the applicant's challenge to the Tribunal's decision. The court noted that the Tribunal had made a number of findings of fact and had considered a range of factors in reaching its decision. The court also found that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction. The court noted that the applicant's removal from Australia would prevent him from participating in any future proceedings and that the Minister had not demonstrated any significant prejudice that would result from the grant of the injunction. The court therefore granted the injunction, restraining the Minister from removing the applicant from Australia until further order.

The court's orders included amending the name of the respondent and restraining the Minister from removing the applicant from Australia until further order. The court noted that entry of orders was dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.