Premalal v Minister for Immigration - [1993] FCA 122

Re: RIENZIE PATRICK PREMALAL KEKULUTOTUWAGE DON
And: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS
No. G 582 of 1992
FED No. 122
Number of pages - 67
Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Immigration
(1993) 41 FCR 117
(1993) 31 ALD 339 (extract)

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Einfeld J.(1)

CATCHWORDS

Administrative Law - Judicial Review - natural justice - legitimate expectations - whether irrelevant matters taken into account when relevant facts lead to unjustified conclusions -unreasonableness within Wednesbury principles - consideration of international treaties on human rights - decision correct but for wrong reasons

Immigration - determination of refugee status - decision that no well founded fear of persecution - ample objective grounds for such fear - effect on decision of credibility of applicant

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act ss 5(1)(a) and (e), 5(2)(a), (b) and (g), 6(2)(g)

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Articles 1, 6(1), 7, 9, 10, 19, 25, 26

Chow Hung Ching v. The King (1948) 77 CLR 449

Parramatta City Council v. Purcell (1973) 128 CLR 305

Salemi v. McKellar (No. 2) (1977) 137 CLR 396

Heatley v. Tasmanian Racing and Gaming Commission (1977) 137 CLR 487

Kioa v. Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1985) 159 CLR 550

Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v. Peko Wallsend Limited (1986) 162 CLR 24

Chan Yee Kin v. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1989) 169 CLR 379

Attorney General (NSW) v. Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1

Mabo v. The State of Queensland (1992) 175 CLR 1

Brunetto v. Collector of Customs (1984) 4 FCR 92

Prasad v. Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1985) 6 FCR 155

Gunaleela and Ors v. Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs and Ors (1987) 14 FCR 591

Gogod v. Lawton (1982) 42 ALR 117

Luu v. Renevier (1989) 91 ALR 39

Capital Television Pty Ltd v. Commonwealth (No. 2) (1992) 108 ALR 577

Nationwide News Pty Ltd v. Wills (1992) 108 ALR 681

Dietrich v. The Queen (1992) 109 ALR 385

Nashua Australia Pty Limited v. Channon (1981) 58 FLR 325

Akpan v. Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1982) 58 FLR 47

Ruangrong v. Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1988) 14 ALD 773

Minister of State for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs v. Pashmforoosh and Anor (1989) 18 ALD 77

Detsongjarus v. Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1990) 21 ALD 139

Independent FM Radio Pty Limited v. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1989) 3 BR 458

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Limited v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 KB 223

Council of Civil Service v. Minister for the Civil Service (1984) 3 All ER 935

Minister for Foreign Affairs v. Magno Full Court of the Federal Court unreported 26 November 1992

Soo v. Tuchin Beaumont J. unreported 30 April 1986

Woudneh v. Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs Gray J. unreported 16 September 1988

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Premalal v Minister for Immigration and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1993] FCA 122
Decision Date: 10 MARCH 1993

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Premalal v Minister for Immigration involved an application for judicial review brought by the applicant against the Minister for Immigration, seeking to challenge a decision that resulted in the applicant's visa being cancelled. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant argued that the Minister's decision was flawed due to procedural and substantive errors, including the consideration of irrelevant factors and failure to consider relevant ones.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Minister took into account irrelevant matters and failed to consider relevant facts, leading to unjustified conclusions. Furthermore, the applicant argued that the decision was unreasonable under the Wednesbury principles and that the Minister failed to consider international human rights treaties. The court was tasked with determining whether the Minister's decision was legally sound and whether the applicant's rights were adequately protected.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that while the Minister's decision was correct, it was made for the wrong reasons. The Minister had taken into account irrelevant matters and failed to consider relevant facts, resulting in an unjustified conclusion. However, the court found that the error in reasoning did not affect the correctness of the outcome. The court also noted that the Minister's failure to consider international human rights treaties did not impact the decision as the outcome would have been the same regardless. Ultimately, the court found that the Minister's decision was not unreasonable and dismissed the application.

The court ordered that the application be dismissed and that each party bear their own costs. The settlement and entry of orders were handled in accordance with Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders:

1. Application dismissed.

2. Each party to pay his own costs.

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

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.