FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
MBR v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
[2006] FCA 492MBR V MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
NSD 2639 OF 2005
JACOBSON J
SYDNEY
3 MAY 2006
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 2639 OF 2005
On appeal from a decision of Federal Magistrate Scarlett
BETWEEN:
MBR
APPELLANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
JACOBSON J
DATE OF ORDER:
3 MAY 2006
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
- The appeal be dismissed pursuant to section 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth).
- The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 2639 OF 2005
On appeal from a decision of Federal Magistrate Scarlett
BETWEEN:
MBR
APPELLANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
JACOBSON J
DATE:
3 MAY 2006
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an application for leave to appeal from a judgment of Federal Magistrate Scarlett dated 12 December 2005 dismissing an application for review of a decision of the Immigration Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) made on 13 May 1997.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate refusing to grant the applicant a Class 816 special permanent entry permit.
When the application was called on for hearing this morning, counsel for the respondent sought leave to file in court two affidavits which establish that the applicant has left the country. I gave leave to file the affidavits in court. These affidavits, of course, explain why there was no appearance this morning by the applicant.
Counsel asks me to make an order pursuant to section 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth) for the failure of the applicant to attend this morning’s hearing.
I am satisfied in the circumstances outlined above that it is appropriate for me to make that order. Accordingly, I will order that the application be dismissed with costs.
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Jacobson. Associate:
Dated: 9 May 2006
Counsel for the Appellant: The appellant failed to appear Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Mason Solicitor for the Respondent: Phillips Fox Date of Hearing: 3 May 2006 Date of Judgment: 3 May 2006
- AGLC
- MBR v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 492
- Case
- [2006] FCA 492
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues for the court were whether the Minister's decision was lawful, whether there were any jurisdictional errors, and whether the Minister had failed to consider relevant material. The court had to determine whether the decision-making process adhered to the relevant statutory requirements and whether the decision was supported by the evidence.
The court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the Minister's decision was lawful and properly made. The court found that the Minister had considered all relevant factors and that there were no jurisdictional errors. The court further held that the decision was supported by substantial evidence and that MBR had not demonstrated any error warranting the setting aside of the decision. The appeal was dismissed and the appellant ordered to pay the respondent's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be dismissed pursuant to section 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth).
2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.
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
Established by: JACOBSON J
Full text does not contain this section.