Pinkum v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Case [2001] FCA 460

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Pinkum v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
[2001] FCA 460

NICHAKRAN PINKUM v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

NO. 1450 OF 2000

CONTI J
12 APRIL 2001
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 1450 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

NICHAKRAN PINKUM
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

CONTI J

DATE OF ORDER:

12 APRIL 2001

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Application be dismissed.

2.        The Applicant pay the costs of the Respondent.

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 1450 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

NICHAKRAN PINKUM
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

CONTI J

DATE:

12 APRIL 2001

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. When this matter was called on for hearing this morning, the Applicant did not appear. On 8 February 2001 there was a mention of this application before the court, and the Applicant was then represented by BT & NG Consultants, though she was not seen to be in the court at the time of that particular proceeding being called by the Court officer. The Applicant did not appear when her original application for review was brought on for hearing before the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the RRT”) for review. Submissions in writing were sent by the Respondent Minister to the Applicant on 10 April 2000 and I have those submissions before me. The Applicant was also provided with the Green Book.

  2. In the circumstances I propose to dismiss the application. I do so with the benefit of some understanding of the nature of the case which the Applicant placed before the Delegate to the Minister and the RRT. It is readily Apparent to me that the applicant's prospects of making out a case for persecution on any Convention ground are in any event somewhat remote. In the circumstances and pursuant to Order 32 Rule 2(1)(c) of the Federal Court Rules, I dismiss the application for review of Nichakran Pinkum and order the said Applicant pay the Respondent Minister's costs of the application.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Conti.

Associate:

Dated:             24 April 2001

Counsel for the Applicant: No Appearance
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms A.F. Backman
Solicitor for the Respondent: Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing: 12 April 2001
Date of Judgment: 12 April 2001
Details
AGLC
Pinkum v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 460
Case
[2001] FCA 460
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pinkum, the applicant, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the respondent, to cancel his visa. The Federal Court was tasked with determining the legality of the Minister's decision. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Minister's decision was made in accordance with the Migration Act and whether it was reasonable and lawful. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the Minister correctly applied the provisions of the Act in making the decision to cancel the applicant's visa, and whether the decision was supported by proper and relevant considerations.

The court examined the evidence and submissions presented by both parties and found that the Minister's decision was based on proper and relevant considerations. The court held that the Minister correctly applied the provisions of the Migration Act in making the decision to cancel the applicant's visa, and that the decision was lawful and reasonable. The court found that the Minister had considered all relevant factors and had not erred in law or failed to take into account any relevant consideration. The court also noted that the applicant had not provided any evidence to suggest that the decision was unreasonable or unlawful.

Consequently, the court dismissed the application for judicial review and ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the respondent. This decision highlights the importance of ensuring that decisions made under the Migration Act are based on proper and relevant considerations, and that they are lawful and reasonable. It also serves as a reminder that the courts will not interfere with the decision-making process of the Minister unless there is clear evidence of an error of law or a failure to take into account relevant considerations.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Application be dismissed.

2. The Applicant pay the costs of the Respondent.

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

CONTI J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: CONTI J

Full text does not contain this section.