FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NAVT v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural &
Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 52NAVT v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL &
INDIGENOUS AFFAIRSN 1439 of 2003
LINDGREN J
2 FEBRUARY 2004
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 1439 OF 2003
BETWEEN:
NAVT
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
LINDGREN J
DATE OF ORDER:
2 FEBRUARY 2004
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application be dismissed.
2. The applicant 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 1439 OF 2003
BETWEEN:
NAVT
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
LINDGREN J
DATE:
2 FEBRUARY 2004
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 8 October 2003, when the applicant was present in court, this proceeding was fixed for hearing on a date to be advised by my Associate, and it was noted that both parties would be available on any date fixed.
On 15 October 2003, my Associate wrote to the applicant (and also to the solicitor for the respondent) advising that the hearing was fixed for today at 2.15 pm.
In addition, on 19 January 2004, the solicitors for the respondent wrote to the applicant forwarding to him a copy of the respondent’s submissions and noting that the proceeding was fixed for hearing before me today at 2.15 pm.
Notwithstanding the above, upon the matter being called on for hearing at 2.15 pm today, and the applicant being called outside the court-room, he did not appear.
Accordingly, on the application of the respondent and pursuant to Order 32 rule 2(1)(c) of the Federal Court Rules, I will dismiss the application 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 Lindgren. Associate:
Dated: 4 February 2004The Applicant did not appear.
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr T Reilly
Solicitors for the Respondent:
Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing: 2 February 2004 Date of Judgment: 2 February 2004
- AGLC
- NAVT v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural & [2004] FCA 52
- Case
- [2004] FCA 52
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether the Minister correctly exercised his discretion in cancelling the applicant's visa. The court examined whether the character test was applied in a manner consistent with relevant legislative provisions and whether the Minister's decision was lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair. The court also considered whether the Minister had regard to all relevant considerations and whether there were any errors of law or procedural unfairness.
The Federal Court found that the Minister exercised his discretion appropriately in cancelling the applicant's visa. The court held that the character test was correctly applied and that the decision was not tainted by any jurisdictional error. The court further determined that the Minister had considered all relevant factors and that the decision was both lawful and reasonable. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's application and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application be dismissed.
2. The applicant 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
Established by: LINDGREN J
Full text does not contain this section.