Moimoi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs

[2000] FCA 198

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Moimoi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs
[2000] FCA 198

MOIMOI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 1082 OF 1999

CARR, SACKVILLE & R D NICHOLSON JJ
6 MARCH 2000
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1082 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	PAULO MOIMOI APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGES:	CARR, SACKVILLE & R D NICHOLSON JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	6 MARCH 2000
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the respondent’s costs.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1082 OF 1999

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	PAULO MOIMOI APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGES:	CARR, SACKVILLE & R D NICHOLSON JJ
DATE:	6 MARCH 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT

1. Judgment was delivered in this appeal on 18 February 2000.  At that time, we reserved our decision on an application made on behalf of the appellant to amend his notice of appeal.  We indicated that we would deal with the application when we delivered judgment on what were said to be constitutional questions raised in Tuitupou v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs N 1169 of 1999 and related appeals.  The reason for taking this course was that the appellant in the present case wished to amend the notice of appeal to raise precisely the same issues that were raised in the other appeals.

2. We have today delivered judgment in the other appeals: Tuitupou v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 197. We explain in that judgment why there is no substance to what were said to be the constitutional arguments. The application to amend the grounds of appeal in the present case is therefore futile. The application should be refused.

3. In consequence, the formal orders of the Court are that:

   1.   The appeal be dismissed.

   2.   The appellant pay the respondent’s costs.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Court.

Associate:

Dated:             6 March 2000

Mr L Fonua assisted the appellant, by leave.

Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor (Mr M Allatt appeared)
Date of Hearing:	18 February 2000
Date of Judgment:	6 March 2000