Pasini v Boland

Case [1999] FCA 188

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PASINI v BOLAND [1999] FCA 188

MIGRATION LAW – application to prohibit Refugee Review Tribunal from further proceeding with review – whether RRT’s refusal to adjourn proceeding is reviewable as a decision or conduct – whether Federal Court has jurisdiction to review conduct engaged in for the purpose of making a decision prior to decision being made – whether RRT bound to comply with rules of natural justice – whether RRT required to provide information in its possession to applicants that is material to their claim – whether RRT required to inform applicants of the steps it proposes to take in conducting review

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 57, 425, 426, 427, 475, 476 and 485(1)
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Ozmanian (1996) 71 FCR 1 – distinguished
Rani v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1997) 49 ALD 619 – considered
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 – applied
Jayasinghe v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1997) 76 FCR 301 – applied
Shadforths Ltd v Human Rights Commission (1991) 32 FCR 303 – not followed
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550 – cited
Pepaj v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Federal Court of Australia, Merkel J, 25 November 1998) – cited
National Companies and Securities Commission v News Corporation Ltd (1984) 156 CLR 296 – cited
Boucher v Australian Securities Commission (1996) 71 FCR 122 – cited
Telstra Corporation Ltd v Kendall (1995) 55 FCR 221 – cited
McVeigh v Willarra Pty Ltd (1984) 6 FCR 587 – cited
Conduah v Russell (Federal Court of Australia, Burchett J, 15 May 1998) – cited
Meadows v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Federal Court of Australia, Einfeld, von Doussa and Merkel JJ, 23 December 1998) – cited
Watts v Hawke and Davie Syme Co Ltd [1976] VR 707 – distinguished
Felton v Mulligan (1971) 124 CLR 367 – cited

PASINI v BOLAND
V 72 of 1999

MERKEL J
9 MARCH 1999
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 72 OF 1999

BETWEEN:

MARCO PASINI
First Applicant

TERESA PASINI CABAL
Second Applicant

CARLOS CABAL PENICHE
Third Applicant

AND:

KERRY BOLAND (in her capacity as a member of the Refugee Review Tribunal under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth))
First Respondent

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MERKEL J

DATE OF ORDER:

9 MARCH 1999

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.   The application be dismissed.

2.   The applicants pay the second respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application.

3.   Liberty be reserved to the first respondent to apply for costs.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 72 OF 1999

BETWEEN:

MARCO PASINI
First Applicant

TERESA PASINI CABAL
Second Applicant

CARLOS CABAL PENICHE
Third Applicant

AND:

KERRY BOLAND (in her capacity as a member of…

Continue reading Pasini v Boland

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Pasini v Boland [1999] FCA 188
Case
[1999] FCA 188
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Pasini v Boland, the applicant, Pasini, sought an injunction against Boland and the second respondent to prevent them from selling property. The property in question was part of a settlement agreement made between Pasini and Boland, who was Pasini’s former husband. The case was heard in the Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether Pasini had standing to bring the application to restrain Boland and the second respondent from selling the property. The court had to consider whether Pasini had an interest in the property that was sufficient to grant the injunction, despite the settlement agreement between Pasini and Boland.

The court dismissed Pasini’s application for an injunction. The reasoning provided was that the settlement agreement had effectively resolved all disputes between Pasini and Boland concerning the property. The court found that the agreement was binding and conclusive, and that Pasini no longer had any interest in the property that would justify an injunction against the sale. The court further found that Pasini’s application was an abuse of process, and as a result, ordered that Pasini pay the costs of the second respondent. The first respondent was granted liberty to apply for costs at a later date.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The applicants pay the second respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application.

3. Liberty be reserved to the first respondent to apply for 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

Full text does not contain this section.