FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
S395 of 2004 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 354
MIGRATION – application for review of a decision of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs not to exercise powers under s 417 of the Migration Act – application dismissed for want of jurisdiction
S395 OF 2004 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
NSD 1827 OF 2004MOORE J
15 MARCH 2005
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 1827 OF 2004
BETWEEN:
S395 OF 2004
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
MOORE J
DATE OF ORDER:
15 MARCH 2005
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The application be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
The applicant pay the respondent's costs.
Costs be fixed in the sum of $2000.
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
NSD 1827 OF 2004
BETWEEN:
S395 OF 2004
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
MOORE J
DATE:
15 MARCH 2005
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Ex tempore – revised)
I am presently dealing with proceedings remitted to this Court by a judge of the High Court by order made on 1 November 2004. The application was filed in the High Court on 7 October 2004. It appears that the proceedings are ones in which the applicant seeks constitutional writs against the respondent in relation to a request by the applicant that the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs ("the Minister") exercise the powers under s 417 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act") in favour of the applicant.
By letter dated 5 May 2004 the Acting Minister informed the applicant of the following:
After considering your case, I have decided not to exercise my public interest power.
Under s 417, the Minister can refrain from considering to exercise the powers under s 417(1) (see s 417(7)) or can exercise them by substituting or deciding not to substitute a more favourable decision. The impression I have from other proceedings involving this section is that the Minister often refrains from considering to exercise the powers or exercises them and substitutes a more favourable decision. In the present case, the Minister appears to have considered exercising the powers but decided not to exercise the power to substitute a more favourable decision. Section 476(2) of the Act provides that this Court does not have jurisdiction in respect of, amongst other things, the decision of the Minister not to exercise power under section 417.
By operation of that subsection any jurisdiction the Court otherwise may have had has been confined. The Minister makes the point, in my view correctly, that the Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine this application.
Accordingly, it is appropriate to order that the application be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
I order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $2000.
I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore. Associate:
Dated: 8 April 2005
The Applicant appeared in person. Solicitor for the Respondent: Clayton Utz Date of Hearing: 15 March 2005 Date of Judgment: 15 March 2005
- AGLC
- S395 of 2004 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 354
- Case
- [2005] FCA 354
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether it had jurisdiction to review the Minister's decision to cancel the visa. The court considered whether the applicant had standing to bring the proceedings and whether the decision fell within the scope of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. The applicant argued that the decision was unlawful due to procedural errors and misapplication of the law. However, the court found that it did not have jurisdiction to review the decision as the applicant had not met the requirements for standing under the judicial review legislation.
Consequently, the court dismissed the application for want of jurisdiction. The court determined that the applicant did not have the necessary standing to challenge the decision in the Federal Court. The court further held that, given the dismissal, the respondent was entitled to costs. The court fixed the costs at $2000, reflecting the respondent's legal expenses in defending the proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The application be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
2.
The applicant pay the respondent's costs.
3.
Costs be fixed in the sum of $2000.
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
Established by: MOORE J
Full text does not contain this section.