FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NAVT v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1676
NAVT v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N195 OF 2004
EMMETT J
17 MARCH 2004
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N195 OF 2004
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT
BETWEEN:
NAVT
APPELLANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
EMMETT J
DATE OF ORDER:
17 MARCH 2004
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:
1. The notice of appeal be treated as an application for leave to appeal.
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
2.The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.
3.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
N195 OF 2004
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT
BETWEEN:
NAVT
APPELLANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
EMMETT J
DATE:
17 MARCH 2004
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
In this matter a document entitled ‘Notice of Appeal’ was filed on 19 February 2004. By this document the appellant purported to appeal from the whole of a judgment of Lindgren J given on 2 February 2004 (NAVT v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 52). On that day his Honour dismissed an application pursuant to O 32 r 2(1)(c) of the Federal Court Rules. In brief reasons given for taking that course his Honour indicated that the matter had been fixed for hearing before his Honour on 2 February 2004 pursuant to directions given on 8 October 2003.
On 8 October 2003 the applicant was present in Court, however, there was no appearance for the applicant when the matter was called on for hearing on 2 February 2004. For that reason his Honour made the order to which I have just referred. The order is clearly interlocutory and accordingly leave to appeal would be required. It is appropriate to treat the document entitled ‘Notice of Appeal’ as an application for leave to appeal. No submissions have been advanced on behalf of the purported appellant. There was no appearance for the appellant when the matter was called on today.
In the circumstances it is appropriate that I make a direction that the Notice of Appeal be treated as an application for leave to appeal. I order that the application for leave to appeal be dismissed. I order the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs.
I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett. Associate:
Dated: 17 December 2004
Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms Houlton of Sparke Helmore Date of Hearing: 17 March 2004 Date of Judgment: 17 March 2004
- AGLC
- NAVT v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1676
- Case
- [2004] FCA 1676
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether the applicant had satisfied the criteria for leave to appeal, particularly in light of the applicant's immigration status and the nature of the decision being appealed. The court had to consider whether the applicant's appeal had a reasonable prospect of success and whether it was in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal. Furthermore, the court had to evaluate the arguments presented regarding the procedural fairness of the decision-making process and the substantive merits of the visa cancellation.
The court concluded that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria necessary for granting leave to appeal. The court found that the applicant's appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success and that it was not in the interests of justice to allow the appeal to proceed. The court reasoned that the decision-making process had been procedurally fair, and the substantive grounds of appeal did not present a compelling case for intervention. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
2. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.
3. 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: EMMETT J
Full text does not contain this section.