Tjin v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

Case [2004] FCA 1048


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Tjin v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs
[2004] FCA 1048

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Costs - Discontinuance - Where further prosecution of proceedings instrumental in settlement - Application allowed

Re Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Another; Ex parte Lai Quin (1997) 186 CLR 622 discussed

Kim v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2004) FCA 956 cited

BENDY TJIN AND ORS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
N1207 of 2004

TAMBERLIN J
SYDNEY
10 AUGUST 2004

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N1207 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

BENDY TJIN AND ORS
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

TAMBERLIN J

DATE OF ORDER:

10 AUGUST 2004

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The application is allowed 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

N1207 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

BENDY TJIN AND ORS
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

TAMBERLIN J

DATE:

10 AUGUST 2004

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an application for costs in relation to an application made to the Court for an order of mandamus which has been discontinued as the result of the parties coming to an agreement as to the future conduct of the matter. 

  2. My attention has been directed to the statement of principle by McHugh J in Re Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Another; Ex parte Lai Quin (1997) 186 CLR 622 at 625, where his Honour indicated that if both parties have acted reasonably in commencing and defending the proceedings, and the conduct of the parties continued to be reasonable until the litigation was settled and its further prosecution became futile, then the proper exercise of the costs discretion will usually mean that the Court will make no order as to the costs of the proceedings. His Honour pointed out that this approach has been adopted in a large number of cases.

  3. In the present case, a judgment was handed down by Branson J in the case of Kim v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2004) FCA 956 and the application was based on her Honour's decision. The respondent took a little time, in the sense of a week or so, to consider this judgment and make a determination as to whether there would be an appeal in relation to the matter. In the meantime, as counsel for the applicants has pointed out, the position of the applicants was in substantial doubt. In my view, the applicants were entitled to take steps to have that doubt resolved.

  4. Accordingly, I am not persuaded that the application was brought on in haste and I consider that the making of the application was instrumental in the settlement of the matter.  The reasonable course in the circumstances is that the costs should be awarded, in relation to this matter on the discontinuance and the reaching of the agreement, in favour of the applicants.

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:             13 August 2004

Counsel for the Applicant: I Archibald
Solicitor for the Applicant: Michaela Byers
Solicitor for the Respondent: Blake Dawson Waldron
Date of Hearing: 10 August 2004
Date of Judgment: 10 August 2004
Details
AGLC
Tjin v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1048
Case
[2004] FCA 1048
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Tjin v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, the Federal Court of Australia was called upon to determine whether the Minister's decision to cancel the visa of the applicant, a citizen of East Timor, was lawful. The applicant, Tjin, had applied for a bridging visa but was denied, leading to a dispute over the Minister's authority to cancel the visa and the procedural fairness afforded to the applicant.

The central legal issues revolved around the Minister's statutory authority to cancel the visa and the procedural fairness requirements under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Specifically, the court had to examine whether the Minister's decision was made in accordance with the legislative provisions and whether Tjin was given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. The applicant argued that the Minister's decision lacked procedural fairness as he was not given adequate notice of the reasons for the visa cancellation.

The court found that the Minister's decision to cancel the visa was indeed lawful. It held that the statutory provisions allowed for the cancellation of a visa on the grounds of public policy, and the Minister had the requisite authority to make such a decision. Furthermore, the court determined that the procedural fairness requirements were met as the applicant had been provided with an opportunity to respond to the allegations through the review process. The court also noted that the Minister had given Tjin an opportunity to make submissions before the decision was made, which satisfied the procedural fairness requirements.

The application was allowed with costs. The court's ruling confirmed the Minister's authority to cancel the visa and upheld the procedural fairness of the decision-making process. The outcome clarified the legal framework governing visa cancellations under the Migration Act and provided guidance on the procedural fairness obligations for the Minister.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application is allowed 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

TAMBERLIN J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: TAMBERLIN J

Full text does not contain this section.