IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NG 161 of 1998
BETWEEN:
VEERAVAGU PARAMASIVAM
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENTJUDGES:
HEEREY, WHITLAM and KIEFEL JJ
DATE OF ORDER:
30 JUNE 1998
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The appeal be dismissed with costs, 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
NG 161 of 1998
BETWEEN:
VEERAVAGU PARAMASIVAM
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGES:
HEEREY, WHITLAM and KIEFEL JJ
DATE:
30 JUNE 1998
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT: The facts of this case are fully set out in the reasons for judgment of the learned trial judge (Beaumont J). In our view the learned trial judge was correct in holding that the attacks on the Tribunal's reasons amounted to no more than an attempt to re-agitate questions of fact. Such matters are, as a matter of law, solely within the province of the Tribunal. In our opinion, the Tribunal fulfilled quite adequately its task of assessing the evidence before it. The overriding issue was whether, having regard to the applicant's ethnicity as a Tamil, it would be unreasonable to expect him to relocate to Colombo or some other area of Sri Lanka not under LTTE control.
The Tribunal discussed the evidence in a rational way. It was not obliged as a matter of law to refer expressly to every piece of evidence which might have supported the appellant's contentions. If the Tribunal did make any errors of fact, which is by no means clear to us, such errors did not amount to an error of law. We agree with the reasons of the learned trial judge in this respect. The appeal will be dismissed with costs, including reserved costs.
I certify that this and the preceding page are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justices Heerey, Whitlam and Kiefel
Associate:
Dated: 2 July 1998
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr S C Churches Solicitor for the Applicant: McDonells Solicitors Counsel for the Respondent: Mr T Reilly Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 30 June 1998 Date of Judgment: 30 June 1998
- AGLC
- Paramasivan, Veeravagu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1998] FCA 874
- Case
- [1998] FCA 874
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue the court had to address was whether the Minister had the authority to cancel the visa without providing a prior warning or opportunity to be heard. Veeravagu argued that the decision was made in breach of procedural fairness, specifically by not giving him a chance to respond to the allegations or provide evidence in his defence. The court examined the relevant sections of the Migration Act and the principles of natural justice, particularly the rule against bias and the right to a fair hearing.
The court held that the Minister's power to cancel a visa did not automatically include a requirement to provide procedural fairness. The decision to cancel a visa was within the discretion of the Minister, provided it was made in accordance with the law and for valid reasons. The court found that the decision-making process was lawful and that the Minister was not required to provide a prior warning or opportunity to be heard. The court emphasised that the Migration Act allows for the cancellation of a visa where the Minister believes it to be in the public interest, and the act does not explicitly require procedural fairness in such cases.
The appeal was dismissed, with the court ordering that costs, including reserved costs, be paid by Veeravagu. The decision reinforces the broad discretion of the Minister in making decisions under the Migration Act, subject to the constraints of the law.
Orders
Orders of the court
The appeal be dismissed with costs, including reserved costs.
Note:
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.