FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Pandikadavath v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1569
ABDUL MAJEED PANDIKADAVATH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 589 OF 2001
DOWSETT J
22 OCTOBER 2001
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 589 OF 2001
BETWEEN:
ABDUL MAJEED PANDIKADAVATH
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
DOWSETT J
DATE OF ORDER:
22 OCTOBER 2001
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application for review be dismissed.
2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings, including reserved 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 589 OF 2001
BETWEEN:
ABDUL MAJEED PANDIKADAVATH
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
DOWSETT J
DATE:
22 OCTOBER 2001
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an application for review, pursuant to s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the “Act”). However no grounds are specified in the application. In those circumstances, the application is liable to be dismissed pursuant to Order 20 rule 2, and Order 54B rule 5. That is the appropriate course. This application is dismissed.
I should add for the record that I have, on a number of occasions, asked the applicant if there is anything that he wishes to say going beyond his application. He has, on each occasion, responded that he simply cannot go back to India, indicating in my view, a desire to review the decision on its merits rather than pursuant to the statutory right of review.
As I have said, the application should be dismissed. I order the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings, including reserved costs.
I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett.
Associate:
Dated: 6 November 2001
The Applicant appeared In Person:
Counsel for the Respondent:
Mr J D Smith
Solicitor for the Respondent:
Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:
22 October 2001
Date of Judgment:
22 October 2001
- AGLC
- Pandikadavath v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1569
- Case
- [2001] FCA 1569
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether the Minister's decision was lawful and if the applicant's visa cancellation was justified based on the grounds provided. The applicant argued that he had not been given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations and that the decision-making process was flawed. The court was tasked with examining the evidence and legal arguments to determine the validity of the Minister's decision.
The court found that the Minister had acted within his powers and that the decision-making process was procedurally fair. It was determined that the applicant had indeed violated the conditions of his visa and that the Minister's decision to cancel his visa was both lawful and justified. The court further held that the applicant had been provided with ample opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. Consequently, the application for review was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs, including reserved costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application for review be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings, including reserved 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: DOWSETT J
Full text does not contain this section.