Prasad, A v Minister for Immigration, Local Government & Ethnic Affairs

[1991] FCA 166

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

1 :

JUDGMENT NO. 1161; /..?!L .......

l

FEDERAI. COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) t - .

1   F

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) VG No. 53 of 1991 L

)

GENERAL DIVISION	1
BETWEEN:

SATENDRA PRASAD

Applicant	I
1 :

- and -

I r

18 APR 1991 MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION. LOCAL GOVERNMENT I :

AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS I .

AUBTRWC.	i
1 :

Respondent I

l ;

JUDGE :	Heerey J.	r l
PLACE :	Melbourne
DATE:	20 March 1991

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

. -

Subject to working out precise details of reporting	I
requirements and the giving of an undertaking to the court by	!,
Mr Iqbal, I propose to grant the order sought that the	i
applicant be released pending the determination of his	i
application.	I
3
I do not think I need elaborate the reasons for this at any	j
great length, since they have been raised in the course of	I
discussion with both counsel, to whose helpful arguments I am	!
much indebted.
The applicant's case raises some questions of law of no little complexity involving, as they do, questions of the operation of the doctrine of estoppel in the context of administrative decisions, an issue that was touched on in the decision of Lee	Affairs (1989) 86 ALR 681, and particularly at pages 703 to	J. in Rubrico v The Minister for Immiaration and Ethnic
As I said in argument, there is some force in Mr OrDonoghue's submissions that there was, in fact, no decision here and therefore no basis for the operation of an estoppel, but I concede that there are, or may be, arguments the other way, and there are also the matters that Miss Kennedy referred to as matters which it is alleged the department failed to take into account, or matters which, being irrelevant, it improperly took into account.
I am also influenced by the fact that it is possible to give a
very speedy hearing of the substantive application, that is immediately after Easter commencing on 3 April, and as a practical matter that greatly minimises the risk of the applicant disappearing into the Australian community.
I am also influenced by the fact that he apparently
established a very satisfactory reputation for employment with Wrightcel Limited, and also that he. has a friend, M r Iqbal, who swore an affidavit undertaking to provide accommodation for the applicant and to give an undertaking to the court that the applicant will comply with all the conditions set for his release.
Also, Mr Iqbal undertakes he will report to the department in

the event that the applicant goes missing after his release.	I certify that this and the preceding page are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable
M r Justice Heerey
Dated: 20 l31.

Appearances

Counsel for the Applicant:	Miss M Kennedy
Solicitors for the Applicant:	M M Chakera & Associates
Counsel for the Defendant:	M r T OrDonoghue
Solicitors for the Defendant:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	20 March 1991
Date of Judgment:	20 March 1991