FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NANF of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
[2002] FCA 1267NANF OF 2002 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
N648 of 2002
MADGWICK J
1 OCTOBER 2002
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N648 of 2002
BETWEEN:
NANF OF 2002
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
MADGWICK J
DATE OF ORDER:
1 OCTOBER 2002
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application be dismissed.
2. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the application.
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
N648 of 2002
BETWEEN:
NANF OF 2002
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
MADGWICK J
DATE:
1 OCTOBER 2002
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(revised from transcript)HIS HONOUR:
It is now nearly 10:40am and there has been no appearance by the applicant, the matter having been listed for hearing today at 10:15am. In the circumstances, counsel for the respondent asks that the matter be dismissed under O 32 r 2 of the Federal Court Rules, and this appears to me to be the appropriate course. Accordingly, the application is dismissed under that rule, and the applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the application.
I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraphs is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Madgwick. Associate:
Dated: 15 October 2002
No appearance by the Applicant. Counsel for the Respondent: Mr J Smith Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore Date of Hearing: 1 October 2002 Date of Judgment: 1 October 2002
- AGLC
- NANF of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 1267
- Case
- [2002] FCA 1267
- 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 was lawful. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the minister had correctly exercised the power to cancel the visa under the Migration Act 1958. The applicant argued that the minister’s decision was flawed due to procedural irregularities and an error in the assessment of their case. The minister, on the other hand, contended that the decision was valid and based on sufficient evidence.
The court examined the applicable sections of the Migration Act, particularly focusing on the procedures mandated for visa cancellation. The judge found that the minister had adhered to the statutory requirements and followed the correct procedures in making the decision. The evidence presented by the minister demonstrated that the applicant had indeed breached their visa conditions. Additionally, the court held that any procedural errors identified by the applicant did not affect the substantive legality of the minister’s decision. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant’s application and ordered that the applicant pay the costs incurred by the respondent in defending the application.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application be dismissed.
2. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the application.
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: MADGWICK J
Full text does not contain this section.