Singh v Migration Review Tribunal

Case [2004] FCA 1304

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Singh v Migration Review Tribunal [2004] FCA 1304

CORRIGENDUM

TEJINDER SINGH v MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL and MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

No Q 25 of 2003

SPENDER J
BRISBANE
11 OCTOBER 2004 (CORRIGENDUM 17.MARCH.2005)


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

QG 25 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

TEJINDER SINGH
APPLICANT

AND:

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

SPENDER J

DATE:

11 OCTOBER 2004

PLACE:

BRISBANE

CORRIGENDUM

1.On Orders page, in orders (1) and (2), where “respondent” appears, substitute “second respondent”.

2.On Reasons for Judgment page, in orders (1) and (2), where “respondent” appears, substitute “second respondent”.

Date:   17 March 2005  Kathryn Finlayson

Associate to Spender J


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Singh v Migration Review Tribunal [2004] FCA 1304

TEJINDER SINGH v MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL and MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

No Q 25 of 2004

SPENDER J
BRISBANE
11 OCTOBER 2004


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q 25 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

TEJINDER SINGH
APPLICANT

AND:

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

SPENDER J

DATE OF ORDER:

11 OCTOBER 2004

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

(1)The respondent pay the costs of the applicant thrown away by the adjournment on 5 May 2004.

(2)The applicant otherwise pay the costs of the respondent of and incidental to the application, to be taxed if not agreed.

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q 25 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

TEJINDER SINGH
APPLICANT

AND:

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

SPENDER J

DATE:

11 OCTOBER 2004

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. I gave judgment in this matter on 25 August 2004, and I then indicated that I would hear the parties on the costs. 

  2. The parties have submitted written submissions.  Those submissions accord with the tentative view I expressed on 25 August 2004. 

  3. I therefore order that:

    (a)The respondent pay the costs of the applicant thrown away by the adjournment on 5 May 2004.

    (b)The applicant otherwise pay the costs of the respondent of and incidental to the application, to be taxed if not agreed.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Spender .

Associate:

Dated:            11 October 2004

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Michael Wilson
Solicitor for the Applicant: Sharma Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Peter Bickford
Solicitor for the Respondent: Blake Dawson Waldron
Date of Hearing: 17 May 2004
Date of Judgment: 25 August 2004
Date of Judgment on Costs: 11 October 2004
Details
AGLC
Singh v Migration Review Tribunal [2004] FCA 1304
Case
[2004] FCA 1304
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Singh v Migration Review Tribunal involved an applicant who had applied for review of a decision made by the Migration Review Tribunal. The dispute centred on the legality of the tribunal's decision and the procedural fairness afforded to the applicant. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue was whether the Migration Review Tribunal had provided the applicant with procedural fairness by allowing them to make submissions in response to a new matter raised by the tribunal. The applicant argued that the tribunal's decision to allow such submissions was flawed, as it was not provided with adequate notice of the new matter. The court was required to determine whether this procedural irregularity rendered the tribunal's decision unlawful.

In its judgment, the court found that the tribunal had indeed provided the applicant with procedural fairness, as the applicant had been given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the new matter. The court held that the applicant had not been prejudiced by the lack of notice, as they were still able to make relevant submissions. The court also found that the tribunal's decision was not flawed by procedural irregularity, and therefore the tribunal's decision was lawful. The applicant's appeal was dismissed, and the court ordered the respondent to pay the costs of the applicant thrown away by the adjournment on 5 May 2004, while the applicant was to pay the costs of the respondent of and incidental to the application, to be taxed if not agreed.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The respondent pay the costs of the applicant thrown away by the adjournment on 5 May 2004.

(2) The applicant otherwise pay the costs of the respondent of and incidental to the application, to be taxed if not agreed.

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

SPENDER J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: SPENDER J

Full text does not contain this section.