FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZHPV v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1818
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 25(2B)(bb)(ii)
SZHPV v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1663 OF 2006MIDDLETON J
17 NOVEMBER 2006
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 1663 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
SZHPV
AppellantAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
MIDDLETON J
DATE OF ORDER:
17 NOVEMBER 2006
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be dismissed.
2.The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the amount of $1,200.
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
NSD 1663 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
SZHPV
AppellantAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
MIDDLETON J
DATE:
17 NOVEMBER 2006
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
In this matter having been called on, the appellant has failed to attend the hearing of this appeal. I am satisfied that the appellant would have been notified of the appeal and its time and place. In the circumstances I will order pursuant to s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) that the appeal be dismissed because there has been a failure of the appellant to attend a hearing relating to the appeal.
In the circumstances of this case I will fix costs at $1,200, so the appeal is dismissed with costs.
I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice MIDDLETON. Associate:
Dated: 21 December 2006
Counsel for the Appellant: The appellant did not appear. Counsel for the Respondent: T Quinn Solicitor for the Respondent: Phillips Fox Date of Hearing: 17 November 2006 Date of Judgment: 17 November 2006
- AGLC
- SZHPV v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1818
- Case
- [2006] FCA 1818
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the decision to cancel the visa was lawful and whether the procedural fairness was properly observed. This involved examining the grounds upon which the visa was cancelled and whether the appellant had a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations against her. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the Minister's decision was supported by appropriate evidence and whether it was open to the court to interfere with the decision.
The court found that the Minister's decision to cancel the visa was lawful and that the process adhered to procedural fairness. The evidence presented to the Minister was deemed sufficient to support the decision, and the appellant did not demonstrate that there was any error in the decision-making process. The court held that the Minister had acted within his powers and that there was no basis for the court to interfere with the decision. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the first respondent, fixed at $1,200.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be dismissed.
2. The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the amount of $1,200.
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: MIDDLETON J
Full text does not contain this section.