FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Moimoi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs
[2000] FCA 198MOIMOI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 1082 OF 1999CARR, 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
APPELLANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENTJUDGES:
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
APPELLANTAND:
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
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.
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.
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
- AGLC
- Moimoi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 198
- Case
- [2000] FCA 198
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the Minister's decision to cancel the appellant's visa was lawful. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the Minister had correctly exercised his discretion under the Migration Act 1958, and whether the decision was supported by relevant considerations and was not irrational or unlawful. The court also needed to assess whether the appellant had a legitimate expectation of continued residence in Australia.
The court found that the Minister's decision was lawful and well within his discretion under the Migration Act. The court held that the Minister had considered all relevant factors and had not acted irrationally. The court also found that the appellant did not have a legitimate expectation of continued residence in Australia. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be dismissed.
2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs.
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.