Panjeta v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

Case [2014] FCA 206


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Panjeta v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 206

Citation: Panjeta v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 206
Appeal from: Panjeta v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2013] FCCA 2293
Parties: PARDEEP PANJETA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION and MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
File number: SAD 348 of 2013
Judge: BESANKO J
Date of judgment: 6 March 2014
Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 36.75
Date of hearing: 6 March 2014
Place: Adelaide
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 5
Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant did not appear
Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr N Swan
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Sparke Helmore

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

SAD 348 of 2013

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

PARDEEP PANJETA
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

BESANKO J

DATE OF ORDER:

6 MARCH 2014

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal, including the notice of objection to competency.

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

SAD 348 of 2013

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

PARDEEP PANJETA
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

BESANKO J

DATE:

6 MARCH 2014

PLACE:

ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. On 2 December 2013, the appellant filed a Notice of Appeal from the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.  In addition, he filed an affidavit sworn on that date.  In both documents he showed an address for service in Clearview, South Australia.  The appellant’s appeal was listed for hearing this morning at 10.15 am.  Both parties were advised of that fact by letter from the National Appeals Registrar dated 24 January 2014.

  2. The letter to the appellant was sent to his address for service as shown on the documents previously mentioned.  Counsel for the first respondent has handed up two letters from the first respondent to the appellant.  Those letters are dated 12 February 2014 and 27 February 2014 respectively.  Both letters are addressed to the appellant at the address for service shown in the documents previously mentioned.  Both letters refer to the fact that the appellant’s appeal is listed for hearing today.

  3. When the appeal was called on for hearing at 10.15 am this morning, the appellant did not appear. I had his name called in the precincts of the Court and still he did not appear. Counsel for the first respondent asked me to dismiss the appeal exercising the power in r 36.75 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (“the Rules”). I decided to adjourn for a short time in case there was a reason the appellant had not appeared at 10.15 am.

  4. The hearing resumed at about 10.45 am, and again, the appellant’s name was called in the precincts of the Court, and again, he did not appear. I am satisfied that the appellant has had notice of the hearing this morning. He has not appeared and I have made inquiries of the Registry of this Court and he has made no attempt to contact the Registry. I am satisfied that the case falls within the provisions of r 36.75 of the Rules and that it is appropriate to make an order that the appeal be dismissed.

  5. I make an order that the appeal be dismissed.  I will also make an order that the appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal, including the notice of objection to competency.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Besanko.

Associate:

Dated:       12 March 2014

Details
AGLC
Panjeta v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 206
Case
[2014] FCA 206
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Ms Panjeta, brought an appeal against a decision by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to cancel her visa. The Federal Court was tasked with determining the appeal and the associated costs. The core issue was whether the decision to cancel the visa was lawful and whether the appellant had the requisite competency to bring the appeal.

The court examined the nature of the appeal and the procedural requirements for competency. It found that the appellant's competency was appropriately challenged by the respondent. The court had to determine whether the tribunal correctly assessed the appellant's competency and whether the appeal should proceed despite any competency concerns. The court found that the tribunal had followed the correct process in assessing competency and that the appeal could proceed. It ultimately concluded that the visa cancellation decision was lawful, as it was based on proper considerations and evidence.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the principles of administrative law and the Migration Act. It found that the tribunal's decision-making process was lawful and that the appellant's arguments did not successfully challenge the decision. The appeal was dismissed, and the court ordered that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal, including those related to the objection to competency. This ruling underscores the importance of procedural fairness and the application of the law in immigration matters.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal, including the notice of objection to competency.

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.