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

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Satendra Prasad, the applicant, sought a release order from the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. The Federal Court of Australia, specifically Heerey J, was tasked with determining whether the applicant should be released pending the determination of his substantive application for a visa. The primary legal issues before the court involved the applicability of the doctrine of estoppel in the context of administrative decisions, as well as whether the Minister's decision-making process was flawed by the failure to consider relevant matters or by the consideration of irrelevant factors.

Heerey J considered the arguments presented by both parties, acknowledging the complexities involved in the application of the doctrine of estoppel to administrative decisions. While there was some merit in the submission that no formal decision had been made, the judge recognised that there were opposing arguments and potential flaws in the Minister's decision-making process. The court was also persuaded by the prospect of a swift hearing of the substantive application and the applicant's satisfactory employment history. Additionally, the presence of a supportive individual willing to provide accommodation and ensure the applicant's compliance with any release conditions played a significant role in the decision.

The court granted the order sought by the applicant, allowing his release pending the determination of his substantive application. The decision was influenced by the possibility of a prompt hearing, the applicant's reputation, and the undertakings provided by his supporter. The court also noted that the applicant would be required to comply with reporting requirements to the department.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

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

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

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