Ogawa v Finance Minister

Link copied
Case Copied 18 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Ogawa v Finance Minister [2021] FCAFC 17

Appeal from: Ogawa v Finance Minister [2020] FCA 829
File number: QUD 208 of 2020
Judgment of: LOGAN, KATZMANN AND JACKSON JJ
Date of judgment: 24 February 2021
Catchwords:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – appeal from decision of Federal Court of Australia dismissing the appellant’s application for judicial review – where Minister did not waive debt of appellant – whether decision was legally unreasonable – where AHRC recommended compensation – appeal dismissed

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where appellant granted leave at first instance to amend originating application to include additional grounds of review – where appellant did not include grounds in originating application – where appellant seeks to raise similar grounds in appeal – where appellant self-represented   
Legislation:

Constitution s 75

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) s 5

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (Cth) s 63
Cases cited:

AAL19 v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCAFC 114

Attorney-General (NSW) v Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1

Branir Pty Ltd v Owston Nominees (No 2) Pty Ltd (2001) 117 FCR 424

Coulton v Holcombe (1986) 162 CLR 1

Flightdeck Geelong Pty Ltd v All Options Pty Ltd (2020) 147 ACSR 227

Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534

Marbury v Madison 5 US (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)

Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Nicholls (2011) 244 CLR 427

Minister for Home Affairs v Ogawa (2019) 269 FCR 536

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZVFW (2018) 264 CLR 541

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332

Ogawa v Carter(Delegate of Finance Minister) [2021] FCAFC 16

Ogawa v Finance Minister [2020] FCA 829

University ofWollongong v Metwally(No 2) (1985) 59 ALJR 481
Division: General Division
Registry: Queensland
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Number of paragraphs: 26
Date of hearing: 17 November 2020
Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms B O’Brien
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

QUD 208 of 2020
BETWEEN:

DR MEGUMI OGAWA

Appellant
AND:

FINANCE MINISTER

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

LOGAN, KATZMANN AND JACKSON JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

24 FEBRUARY 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, to be fixed by a registrar if not agreed.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

  1. On 21 June 2019, Dr Megumi Ogawa (Dr Ogawa) applied to the respondent Minister for Finance (Minister) to exercise the power conferred on him by s 63(1)(a) of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (Cth) (PGPA Act) to waive a debt in the total amount of $46,461.89 which she then owed to the Commonwealth. The debt had various components. In part, it comprised an outstanding…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ogawa v Finance Minister and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2021] FCAFC 17
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Ogawa v Finance Minister, the appellant sought judicial review of the decision of the Minister of Finance not to waive a debt owed by the appellant. The Federal Court of Australia had previously dismissed the appellant’s application for review, and this dismissal was now under appeal. The appellant, self-represented, argued that the decision was legally unreasonable and sought to amend the grounds of the appeal to include new arguments that were not present in the originating application.

The central legal issue in the appeal was whether the decision of the Minister not to waive the appellant’s debt was legally unreasonable. The appellant contended that the decision was unreasonable in light of a recommendation by the Australian Human Rights Commission for compensation. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the appellant was entitled to raise new grounds of review on appeal that were not included in the original application before the Federal Court.

The court held that the appeal was without merit and dismissed it. It found that the Minister's decision was not legally unreasonable, as it was supported by evidence and did not contravene any statutory or common law principles. The court also declined to consider the new grounds of review proposed by the appellant, as they had not been raised in the originating application in the Federal Court. The court further held that the appellant was not entitled to raise these grounds in the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, to be fixed by a registrar if not agreed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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

Full text does not contain this section.