FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NANU v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
[2004] FCA 345NANU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
N114 of 2004JACOBSON J
24 MARCH 2004
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 114 of 2004
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF A FEDERAL MAGISTRATE
BETWEEN:
NANU
APPELLANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
JACOBSON J
DATE OF ORDER:
24 MARCH 2004
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be dismissed.
2.The appellant pay the respondent’s costs in the proceedings.
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 114 of 2004
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF A FEDERAL MAGISTRATE
BETWEEN:
NANU
APPELLANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
JACOBSON J
DATE:
24 MARCH 2004
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an appeal from a judgment of a Federal Magistrate delivered on 16 January 2004 dismissing an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the RRT”). The decision of the RRT was handed down on 14 March 2003.
The matter was called on for hearing this morning at 10.15 am but there was no appearance for the appellant. I stood the matter down for 20 minutes to enable the appellant to appear if he was delayed or otherwise unable to be at Court at 10.15 am. It is now
11.15 am and there is no appearance by the appellant.
On 26 February 2004, I listed the appeal for hearing before me this morning. There was no appearance by the appellant on 26 February but Mr Reynolds, solicitor, appeared for the Minister. Ms Francois of counsel tendered this morning a letter dated 26 February 2004 from the solicitors for the Minister notifying the appellant of the hearing date. She also tendered a letter of 22 March 2004 which was sent by express post to the appellant enclosing the Minister's outline of submissions. Both letters were sent to the appellant at the address for service stated in the notice of appeal.
I have been asked to exercise my powers under O 52, r 38A(1)(c) to dismiss the appeal by reason of the absence of the appellant when the matter was called on for hearing. The Minister does not ask me to proceed under O 52, r 38A(1)(d).
I am satisfied in the circumstances which have been put before me that I ought to dismiss the appeal under paragraph (c) of the Rules. Accordingly, the orders I will make are that the appeal be dismissed with costs.
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Jacobson. Associate:
Date: 26 March 2004
No appearance for the appellant. Counsel for the Respondent: Ms R Francois Solicitor for the Respondent: Clayton Utz Date of Hearing: 24 March 2004 Date of Judgment: 24 March 2004
- AGLC
- NAustralian National University v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 345
- Case
- [2004] FCA 345
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court delved into the principles of administrative law, focusing on the scope of judicial review and the standards of review applicable to decisions made by the Minister. It was necessary to determine whether the Minister's decision was made in accordance with the legal framework and whether it was free from jurisdictional error. The court considered the nature of the decision-making process and whether there were any errors in the application of the law or material errors of fact. The university argued that the Minister had failed to properly consider certain aspects of the application, while the Minister contended that the decision was well within the bounds of the statutory authority.
After careful consideration, the court found that the Minister had correctly exercised his discretion and that the decision was not subject to judicial review on the grounds presented. The court concluded that the Minister's decision was supported by relevant considerations and was not flawed by jurisdictional error. The university's contentions regarding the Minister's failure to consider certain aspects of the application were rejected as the court found that the decision-making process had been thorough and in compliance with the statutory requirements. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs in the proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be dismissed.
2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs in the proceedings.
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: JACOBSON J
Full text does not contain this section.