FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| MZWOR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2005] FMCA 845 |
| MIGRATION – Costs order sought against a solicitor – misconduct on the part of the solicitor. |
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, r.21.07
Aiden Shipping Co Ltd v Interbulk Ltd [1986] AC 965
Baik and Hankuk Grocery Proprietary Limited v The Minister for Immigration [2004] FMCA 543
Caboolture Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd(in liq) v White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd (1993) 45 FCR 224
Da Sousa v Minister of State for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1993) 114 ALR 708
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Levick (1999) 43 ATR 621
Dunstan (No. 2) (2000) 112 A Crim R 63
Etna v Arif [1999] 2 VR 353
Flower and Hart v White Industries Queensland Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 773; (1999) 87 FCR 134
Knight v FP Special Assets Ltd (1992)174 CLR 178
Kumar v The Minister [2004] FCA 18; (2004) 133 FCR 582
Levick v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (2000) 44 ATR 315
Myers v Elman [1940] AC 282
R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Gulbamer, Gulsen [1997] COD 430
Re Ansett Australia Holdings Limited (1997) 94 ACR 7 and 12
Re JJT (1998) 23 Fam LR 1
SZABF v The Minister for Immigration (No. 2) [2003] FMCA 178
| Applicant: | MZWOR |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| File No: | MLG 926 of 2004 |
| Delivered on: | 23 June 2005 |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Hearing date: | 6 May 2005 |
| Judgment of: | Riethmuller FM |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | No appearance |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr Mosby |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Clayton Utz |
ORDERS
Pursuant to Rule 21.07 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, the applicant's solicitor, Mr Joseph Belbruno, pay the respondent's costs fixed in the amount of $3,797.50 — such sum to be paid within 21 days.
That the Registrar of the Federal Magistrates Court forward the papers in this matter to the Law Institute of Victoria with a request that the Law Institute investigate the conduct of Mr Belbruno.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
MLG 926 of 2004
| MZWOR |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
In this matter the applicant sought judicial review with respect to a decision not to grant him a protection visa. The applicant advised the respondent on 18 March 2005 that he wished to withdraw the application and that he was leaving the country on 20 March 2005. In the circumstances the application was dismissed.
The respondent seeks costs against the solicitor who was on the record for the applicant. It is appropriate that I give some brief history of the matter.
Background
The proceedings were commenced on 15 July 2004 by Mr Joseph Belbruno, a solicitor of Moonee Ponds, Victoria. The initiating proceedings sought the following:
APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO REVIEW
DECISION SOUGHT TO BE REVIEWED
Application to review the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal’) that the Tribunal affirms…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read MZWOR v Minister for Immigration and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2005] FMCA 845
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicant, MZWOR, challenged the Minister for Immigration's decision to cancel his visa. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, specifically by the Migration and Refugee Division. The primary issue before the court was whether the Tribunal properly exercised its discretion in cancelling MZWOR's visa on the basis of character grounds. MZWOR argued that the Tribunal failed to adequately consider relevant evidence and that the decision was unreasonable. The court was required to determine whether the Tribunal's decision was legally sound and whether it was open to the Tribunal to make the decision it did.
The court found that the Tribunal's decision was not open to it because it failed to properly consider certain evidence and placed undue weight on other evidence. The court held that the Tribunal's failure to consider all relevant evidence meant that the decision was unreasonable. The court noted that the Tribunal had a duty to consider all relevant evidence and to give reasons for its decision. The court also found that the Tribunal had erred in placing undue weight on certain evidence, which led to an unreasonable outcome. As a result, the court remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
Pursuant to Rule 21.07 of the
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.