FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
[2001] FCA 1787
Savic v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 420(2)(a),(b), 476(1),(b),(c),(e),(g), 476(4)(a),(b)
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1997 (Cth) s 5(1)(h), 5(3)(a),(b)Chan Yee Kin v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1989) 169 CLR 379 referred to
Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 applied
Bank of Valetta PLC v National Crime Authority [1999] FCA 791 applied
Scruples Imports Pty Ltd v Crabtree & Evelyn Pty Ltd (1983) 1 IPR 315 applied
Parkasho v Singh [1968] P 233 considered
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 197 CLR 611 referred to
Australian Broadcasting Appeal Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 referred to
Curragh Queensland Mining Ltd v Daniel (1992) 34 FCR 212 referred to
Television Capricornia Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1986) 13 FCR 511 considered
Western Television Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1986) 12 FCR 414 considered
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2000) 180 ALR 1 considered
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Rajalingam [1999] FCA 179, (1999) FCR 220 applied
Wu Shan Liang v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1996) 185 CLR 259 consideredDUSAN SAVIC v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
S 72 of 2001
MANSFIELD J
18 DECEMBER 2001
ADELAIDE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
S 72 OF 2001
BETWEEN:
DUSAN SAVIC
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
MANSFIELD J
DATE OF ORDER:
18 DECEMBER 2001
WHERE MADE:
ADELAIDE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application is allowed.
2.The application to the Refugee Review Tribunal is remitted to the Refugee Review Tribunal for reconsideration according to law.
3. The respondent pay to the applicant costs of the application.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
S 72 OF 2001
BETWEEN:
DUSAN SAVIC
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
MANSFIELD J
DATE:
18 DECEMBER 2001
PLACE:
ADELAIDE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The applicant seeks review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) given on 1 May 2001. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent given on 5 August 1999 to refuse to grant to the applicant a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
There is only one ground of review argued on this application, so the background to the application and the Tribunal’s reasons for its decision need be referred to only briefly.
The applicant is 31 years of age, and is married with two children. He is a national of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). He is a Serbian who is an Orthodox Christian. After completing his schooling in 1988, he undertook a year of military service. He then worked as a driver employed by the government until 1991, and thereafter was self-employed as…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Savic v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2001] FCA 1787
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether the Minister's decision was lawful and whether the applicant's rights to procedural fairness were respected. The central legal issue was whether the Minister's reliance on certain information in making the decision was appropriate and whether the applicant had a fair opportunity to respond to this information. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the decision was supported by relevant material and whether there were any jurisdictional errors.
The court found that the Minister's decision was flawed due to procedural unfairness and errors in the consideration of relevant information. The Minister had relied on information that was not disclosed to the applicant, which prevented him from adequately responding. The court concluded that the Minister's failure to ensure procedural fairness rendered the decision invalid. The court further found that the decision was not supported by relevant material and contained errors in the interpretation of evidence.
Consequently, the court allowed the application and remitted the matter to the Refugee Review Tribunal for reconsideration. The court also ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs of the application.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application is allowed.
2. The application to the Refugee Review Tribunal is remitted to the Refugee Review Tribunal for reconsideration according to law.
3. The respondent pay to the applicant costs of the application.
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: MANSFIELD J
Full text does not contain this section.