Pham v Minister for Immigration

Case

[2015] FCCA 985

16 April 2015


FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PHAM v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2015] FCCA 985

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Partner (Residence) (class BS) Partner (subclass 801) visa – no jurisdictional error.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Summary dismissal – proceedings summarily dismissed.

Legislation: 
Federal Circuit Court Act 1999, s.17A
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, r.13.10

Migration Act 1958, ss.476
Migration Regulations 1994 reg.1.15AA

Spencer v the Commonwealth of Australia (2010) 241 CLR 118
Applicant: DINH KIEN PHAM
Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION
File Number: SYG 769 of 2015
Judgment of: Judge Street
Hearing date: 16 April 2015
Date of Last Submission: 16 April 2015
Delivered at: Sydney
Delivered on: 16 April 2015

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant: Ms J. Tra
VietAust Lawyers
Solicitors for the Respondent: Ms E. Warner-Knight
Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

  1. The proceedings be summarily dismissed.

  2. The Applicant to pay the Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $1367.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT SYDNEY

SYG 769 of 2015

DINH KIEN PHAM

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This was an application purportedly within the purportedly within the Court’s jurisdiction under s.476 of the Migration Act 1958 in respect of which there was a clear jurisdictional impediment to the proposed proceedings.  The solicitor for the applicant, Ms Tra, has indicated that the applicant seeks to discontinue the proceedings. In the circumstances the Court orders that the proceedings be dismissed.

I certify that the preceding one (1) paragraph is a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Street

Associate: 

Date:  17 April 2015

Areas of Law

  • Immigration

  • Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

  • Judicial Review

  • Jurisdiction

  • Summary Judgment

  • Procedural Fairness

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

5