Savic v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs

Link copied
Case Copied 27 min read

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 considered

DUSAN 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
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

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
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MANSFIELD J

DATE:

18 DECEMBER 2001

PLACE:

ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. 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).

  2. 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.

  3. 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…

CaseChat AU logo

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
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
[2001] FCA 1787
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Savic v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs involved the applicant, Mr. Savic, appealing against the decision of the Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs to cancel his visa. The dispute centred on the validity of the Minister's decision and the procedural fairness of the decision-making process. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

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

MANSFIELD J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: MANSFIELD J

Full text does not contain this section.