FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZEMP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1546
SZEMP v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
NSD1226 OF 2005
EMMETT J
12 OCTOBER 2005
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD1226 OF 2005
BETWEEN:
SZEMP
APPELLANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
EMMETT J
DATE OF ORDER:
12 OCTOBER 2005
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The notice of motion filed on 30 September 2005 be dismissed.
2. The applicant on the motion pay the respondent’s costs of the motion.
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
NSD1226 OF 2005
BETWEEN:
SZEMP
APPELLANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
EMMETT J
DATE:
12 OCTOBER 2005
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 9 September 2005, for reasons given on that day, the Court ordered that the appeal in this proceeding be dismissed pursuant to s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), on the basis that there was no appearance for the appellant. On 30 September 2005, the appellant filed a notice of motion seeking an order that the order of 9 September 2005 be set aside and that the matter be re-listed for hearing.
Since that order was an interlocutory order, it would be open to the Court to make such an order pursuant to O 35 r 7. However, when the matter was called on for hearing today, being the time appointed for the hearing of the motion, there was no appearance for the applicant. The Minister therefore asks that the motion be dismissed. That is the appropriate course.
I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett. Associate:
Dated: 1 November 2005
No appearance for the appellant. Solicitor for the Respondent: Clayton Utz Date of Hearing: 12 October 2005 Date of Judgment: 12 October 2005
- AGLC
- SZEMP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1546
- Case
- [2005] FCA 1546
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether the respondent's decision to cancel the applicant's visa was lawful, whether the decision was reasonable, and whether the decision-making process was procedurally fair. The court examined whether the decision was made on the basis of relevant and material considerations, and whether the decision-making process adhered to the principles of procedural fairness.
The court found that the decision to cancel the applicant's visa was lawful, as it was based on the applicant's criminal history and was within the power of the Minister under the Migration Act. The court also found that the decision was reasonable, as it was based on the seriousness of the applicant's criminal offences and the risk he posed to the Australian community. The court further found that the decision-making process was procedurally fair, as the applicant was given an opportunity to provide evidence and make submissions before the decision was made. The court dismissed the applicant's motion and ordered him to pay the respondent's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The notice of motion filed on 30 September 2005 be dismissed.
2. The applicant on the motion pay the respondent’s costs of the motion.
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: EMMETT J
Full text does not contain this section.