FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZBOL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 260
SZBOL V MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
N 1976 of 2004
JACOBSON J
11 MARCH 2005
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 1976 OF 2004
BETWEEN:
SZBOL
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
JACOBSON J
DATE OF ORDER:
9 MARCH 2005
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application is dismissed.
2.No order as to costs.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 1976 OF 2004
BETWEEN:
SZBOL
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
JACOBSON J
DATE:
9 MARCH 2005
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an application for extension of time to file and serve an application for leave to appeal against the orders and judgment of Federal Magistrate Driver, dated 27 October 2004.
The matter was listed for hearing on Wednesday, 9 March 2005. Mr Angelovski, solicitor, appeared on that occasion for the applicant and asked for a short adjournment. I adjourned the matter to today. Mr Angelovski appears this morning and informs me that the applicant does not wish to pursue the application for leave to appeal, which is withdrawn.
In those circumstances I think the appropriate order to make is that the application be dismissed.
Mr Carter, for the Minister, seeks an order for costs. Although ordinarily costs follow the event, I think that in the circumstances of this case it is appropriate for me to exercise my discretion to make no order as to costs.
Mr Angelovski appeared on 9 March 2005 and informed me that he'd only very recently been approached for advice, and said on that occasion that it may well be that the applicant would not proceed with the application after he'd had the opportunity to be advised on the matter.
As I've said, the application was withdrawn this morning, and I think that in all the circumstances it is appropriate to make no order as to costs of the application.
I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Jacobson. Associate:
Dated: 16 March 2005
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Angelovski Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Carter Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore Date of Hearing: 11 March 2005 Date of Judgment: 11 March 2005
- AGLC
- SZBOL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 260
- Case
- [2005] FCA 260
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the decision to cancel the visa was unreasonable and whether the minister had failed to consider relevant information. The court was tasked with assessing the minister's discretion in exercising the power to cancel the visa, and whether the decision was made in accordance with the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Furthermore, the court had to consider if there was any procedural unfairness or bias in the decision-making process.
In examining the minister's decision, the court found that the minister had exercised their discretion lawfully and that the decision was not unreasonable. The court held that the minister had properly considered the relevant factors, including the nature and circumstances of the character-related grounds for cancellation. The court also found that the decision-making process was procedurally fair, with no evidence of bias or failure to consider relevant information. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for judicial review.
The orders made by the court were that the application for judicial review was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs. This decision upheld the minister's authority in cancelling the visa and affirmed the validity of the decision-making process.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application is dismissed.
2. No order as to 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: JACOBSON J
Full text does not contain this section.