FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Subakaran v Minister For Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 707
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 48B
SIVAGNANAM SUBAKARAN V MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS.
N772 OF 1999R D NICHOLSON J
26 MAY 2000
PERTH
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
N772 OF 1999
BETWEEN:
SIVAGNANAM SUBAKARAN
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
R D NICHOLSON J
DATE OF ORDER:
26 MAY 2000
WHERE MADE:
PERTH
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The applicant pay the respondent’s 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
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
N772 OF 1999
BETWEEN:
SIVAGNANAM SUBAKARAN
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
R D NICHOLSON J
DATE:
26 MAY 2000
PLACE:
PERTH
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This application was argued before the Court on 5 May 2000. The application was dismissed but costs were reserved. The reservation of costs occurred because the question was raised at the hearing whether an award of costs, which had been sought by the respondent, would, if granted, bar the applicant from making a further protection visa application in the event of the Minister making an appropriate determination allowing him to do so under s 48B of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”).
Submissions have now been received from the respondent assuring the Court that any costs order made in this matter will be no bar to the applicant’s situation being considered under s 48B; will not prevent his making a further protection visa application should the Minister make a determination pursuant to s 48B; and will not prevent a protection visa from being granted to him in the event it is otherwise appropriate. On the basis of those submissions it is appropriate that the respondent should be awarded his costs of the application. The order will be made accordingly.
I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice R D NICHOLSON. Associate:
Dated: 26 May 2000
Applicant appeared via video on his own behalf Counsel for the Respondent: Mr P R Macliver Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 5 May 2000 Date of Judgment: 26 May 2000
- AGLC
- Subakaran v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 707
- Case
- [2000] FCA 707
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Minister’s decision to cancel Subakaran’s visa was justified and whether the decision-making process complied with the principles of procedural fairness. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether Subakaran had been given an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him and whether the decision was based on relevant and material considerations.
In delivering its judgment, the court found that the Minister’s decision to cancel Subakaran’s visa was lawful and that the principles of procedural fairness had been observed. The court noted that Subakaran had been provided with a statement of reasons for the decision and had been given an opportunity to make submissions in response. The court was satisfied that the decision was based on relevant and material considerations and was not affected by any jurisdictional error. As a result, the court dismissed Subakaran’s application for review of the Minister’s decision. The court also ordered that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application.
Orders
Orders of the court
The applicant pay the respondent’s 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
Full text does not contain this section.