FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZCLQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1089
SZCLQ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
N1018 of 2004TAMBERLIN J
SYDNEY
20 AUGUST 2004
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N1018 OF 2004
BETWEEN:
SZCLQ
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
TAMBERLIN J
DATE OF ORDER:
20 AUGUST 2004
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with 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
N1018 OF 2004
BETWEEN:
SZCLQ
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
TAMBERLIN J
DATE:
20 AUGUST 2004
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The applicant was absent without any form of explanation when the application for leave to appeal was called on for hearing. Therefore I have been asked to exercise my discretion under O 52 r 38A(1)(c) of the Federal Court Rules to dismiss the application, and in the circumstances I consider it is appropriate that the application be dismissed with costs.
I note that the applicant had indicated on an earlier occasion that she missed an opportunity to attend a directions hearing because she did not understand English, and therefore did not understand a letter which came to her; that she did not have any friends or anyone who could translate the contents of the letter; and that she would appear before the Court in time in the future.
The applicant asked the Court in an affidavit of 28 June 2004 for permission to continue with the hearing, and reaffirmed that she was very weak in English. This morning arrangements were made to have an interpreter present, and I note that on 10 August 2004, a letter was written to the applicant at her last known address, from the Court, indicating in bold print and in detail that the matter would be heard by me at 9.30 on Friday, 20 August 2004. This was noted twice and the letter was sent to the applicant in Thai and also in the English language. No contact appears to have been made by the applicant and she did not appear this morning. I note these matters for the records.
The order of the Court is that the application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Tamberlin. Associate:
Dated: 20 August 2004
No appearance by the Applicant. Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms K Bryant Date of Hearing: 20 August 2004 Date of Judgment: 20 August 2004
- AGLC
- SZCLQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1089
- Case
- [2004] FCA 1089
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the Minister's decision was legally sound and whether the applicant's failure to disclose certain information constituted a material omission that warranted visa cancellation. The court was required to determine whether the applicant's actions amounted to deception, which would justify the visa cancellation, and whether the principles of natural justice were upheld.
The court found that the Minister's decision was well-founded. It concluded that the applicant's non-disclosure of critical information was indeed material and amounted to deception. The court held that the Minister's decision did not breach any legal principles and was consistent with the relevant legislative framework. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and ordered the applicant to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings.
No further orders were made beyond the dismissal of the appeal and the imposition of costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with 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: TAMBERLIN J
Full text does not contain this section.