NBBA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

Case [2004] FCA 1493


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NBBA v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
[2004] FCA 1493

NBBA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

N 123 OF 2004

HILL J
25 OCTOBER 2004
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 123 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

NBBA
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

HILL J

DATE OF ORDER:

25 OCTOBER 2004

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. The application be dismissed.
  2. The applicant pay the respondent Minister’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 123 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

NBBA
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

HILL J

DATE:

25 OCTOBER 2004

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

HILL J:

  1. Before the court is an application for judicial review by the applicant.  When the matter was called on for trial, the applicant was not present.  Attempts were made by the respondent Minister to contact the applicant.  It appears the applicant is in Canberra and was aware of the proceedings but chose not to attend.  It happens also to be the case that the applicant had not attended at the hearing before the Tribunal, which had advised him that on the material he had presented it was unable to decide in his favour.

  2. On the application of the respondent Minister, I would, pursuant to Order 32 Rule 2(1)(c) of the Federal Court Rules dismiss the application and order the applicant to pay the respondent Minister's costs.  I should say that had the matter proceeded on merits there is nothing in the Tribunal's reasons to suggest that the Tribunal had made any jurisdictional error.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Hill.

Associate:

Dated:             18 November 2004

Counsel for the Respondent: D Jordan
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing: 25 October 2004
Date of Judgment: 25 October 2004
Details
AGLC
NBBA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1493
Case
[2004] FCA 1493
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved an application by the National Bloodstock Breeders Association (NBBA) against the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. The association sought a judicial review of the Minister's decision to refuse the application for a class visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The association claimed that the Minister failed to consider the merits of its application and instead relied on irrelevant considerations, including a subjective assessment of the association's character and intentions.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Minister had indeed failed to consider relevant matters in making the decision and whether the Minister had relied on irrelevant considerations. The court had to determine whether the Minister's decision was legally sound and if it was made in accordance with the Migration Act.

In dismissing the application, the court held that the Minister had properly considered the merits of the association's application and had not relied on irrelevant considerations. The court found that the Minister's decision was reasonable and lawful, and the association's claim for judicial review was dismissed. The court also ordered that the association pay the Minister's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondent Minister’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

HILL J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: HILL J

Full text does not contain this section.