FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Suwandi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1239
SUWANDI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 261 of 2000MADGWICK J
9 AUGUST 2000
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 261 of 2000
BETWEEN:
SUWANDI
AND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
JUDGE:
MADGWICK J
DATE OF ORDER:
9 AUGUST 2000
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The proceedings be dismissed pursuant to Order 32 Rule 2(1)(c) of the Federal Court Rules.
2.The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 261 of 2000
BETWEEN:
SUWANDI
AND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
JUDGE:
MADGWICK J
DATE:
9 AUGUST 2000
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(revised from transcript)HIS HONOUR:
In this matter at about 10.30 am, the case, having been fixed to commence at 10.15 am, there was no appearance by the applicant. It had been arranged, at the applicant's request, that a Mandarin interpreter be present in court and she was. Apparently, when the applicant was late, my new associate caused some inquiries to be made of the applicant as to his whereabouts and, in an effort to be helpful, caused the applicant to be told by the interpreter that if he did not turn up, he would be at risk as to costs.
It is enough to say, that the applicant conveyed to the interpreter no good reason for not presenting himself before the court. He has had a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The Refugee Review Tribunal understood him to have not availed himself of an opportunity to attend to give evidence and make submissions to that Tribunal. In my view, this is an appropriate case to dismiss the proceedings under Order 32 Rule 2(1)(c), as counsel for the respondent has asked that I do. The proceedings will be dismissed. The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs.
I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Madgwick. Associate:
Dated: 4 September 2000
Counsel for the Applicant: No appearance by the applicant Counsel for the Respondent: V Hartstein Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 9 August 2000 Date of Judgment: 9 August 2000
- AGLC
- Suwandi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1239
- Case
- [2000] FCA 1239
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to decide whether the decision to cancel the applicant's visa was legally sound and whether there were any procedural irregularities in the decision-making process. The court also needed to determine whether the decision was made on the basis of irrelevant considerations or whether the decision-maker failed to take into account relevant considerations. Additionally, the court examined whether the decision was unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense.
The court found that the decision to cancel the applicant's visa was lawful and that there were no procedural irregularities in the decision-making process. The court held that the decision was based on relevant considerations and that the decision-maker had not failed to take into account any relevant considerations. The court also found that the decision was not unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense. Accordingly, the court dismissed the applicant's application for judicial review and ordered that the proceedings be dismissed. Furthermore, the court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The proceedings be dismissed pursuant to Order 32 Rule 2(1)(c) of the Federal Court Rules.
2. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs.
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: MADGWICK J
Full text does not contain this section.