FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NADM v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 176
NADM v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 1668 OF 2001TAMBERLIN J
SYDNEY
8 MARCH 2002
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N1668 OF 2001
BETWEEN:
NADM
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION
AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
TAMBERLIN J
DATE OF ORDER:
22 FEBRUARY 2002
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The application is dismissed with 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
N1668 OF 2001
BETWEEN:
NADM
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION
AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
TAMBERLIN J
DATE:
22 FEBRUARY 2002
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
In this matter the applicant was called when the matter came to hearing. Mr Halligan, who has acted in the past for the applicant has informed me that the applicant was aware of the hearing today. Mr Halligan applied for leave to discontinue acting as solicitor for the applicant and I granted leave for him to do so. He said that he had spoken to the applicant and informed the applicant of the hearing date today. The matter has been called and the applicant has not appeared. There has been no contact with the Court in relation to this matter on behalf of the applicant.
Accordingly, I dismiss the application with costs. I note that there is provision in the Federal Court Rules, in cases where orders are made for want of appearance, for an applicant to approach the Court to modify that order. I will, nevertheless, direct that both Mr Halligan and Mr White write to the applicant, informing the applicant of the decision which was made today, at the last known address and notify the applicant of O 35 r 7 which permits an application to be made to set aside or vary a judgment or order which has been made for default for want of appearance. I direct that a copy of O 35 r 7 be sent by Mr White to the applicant at the last known address.
I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Tamberlin. Associate:
Dated: 8 March 2002
Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr Halligan Counsel for the Respondent: Mr White Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore Date of Hearing: 22 February 2002 Date of Judgment: 22 February 2002
- AGLC
- NADM v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 176
- Case
- [2002] FCA 176
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Minister's decision to cancel the applicant's visa on character grounds was lawful and justified. This involved interpreting the relevant legislative provisions, specifically those concerning the character test for visa holders, and assessing whether the Minister had correctly applied the law in making his decision. The applicant argued that the Minister had failed to consider all relevant factors and had given insufficient weight to certain mitigating circumstances. The court was required to determine whether the Minister's decision was legally sound and based on appropriate considerations.
The court examined the Minister's decision in detail and considered the applicable legislative framework. It found that the Minister had correctly identified the relevant criteria and had given appropriate consideration to the applicant's criminal history. The court held that the Minister's decision was supported by the evidence and was not tainted by any jurisdictional error. The applicant's argument that the Minister had failed to consider all relevant factors was rejected as the court found that the Minister had adequately weighed the evidence and had made a decision within his lawful powers. Consequently, the court dismissed the application and ordered that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the applicant.
Orders
Orders of the court
The application is dismissed with 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
Established by: TAMBERLIN J
Full text does not contain this section.