D?YTE :
| The C I I I J L - ~ iz | movd on | behalf i;f the | applicant fltr | an |
order restraining t.he execut.ion of an order for t.he deportation of the applicant. whi::h xas made on 26 Fs!bruary 1387. The Frajceeding
| in w h i c h that motion i s made is a projceerlinc~ which was | originated |
by t.he filing G f an application under the Administrative Decisions (Judisial Review) Act 1977 for the review of a much earlier administrative dacizion kiy t.he respondent, himself, t.hat is to say
t h e Minister, a decision to refusF t o grant t.he applicant an entry
permit..
The decision is expressed in the originating document to
| be a decisian refusing the grant of resident st.atus, | vhich in lay |
| language is perhaps not | an inaccurate way Gf describing it. |
There is I think great; conceptual difficulky in having an uriginating application ramprehend an application f o r review of a decision not made c;ntil after the filing af the originating application. It was suggested on behalf af the appllcant that the $200 filing fee w n u l d Le a great t3bstacle to her instituting a f resh proceeding by filing a further originating application, but there is not any actual evidence either that the fee would have t o be paid immediately or that she simply does not have the $200.
| The other ground of a t . tack suggested w a s that | the |
| This is a | case in w h i c h , if | there be any argument | fit |
f u r consideratinn in support of an application for an IDrder of
review, there has been sufficient time tu formulate the argument
and to present it. Pio such argument has been presented to me and
kherefclre there appears ts me t.o be no basis on which a n
injunctive order restraining exe i -u t ion of the deportation order
- AGLC
- Turin, Gloria v Hurford, Christopher John [1987] FCA 801
- Case
- [1987] FCA 801
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction to review the decision to deport Turin and whether an injunction should be granted to prevent the execution of the deportation order. The court considered whether the applicant had presented a sufficient argument to warrant an injunction and whether there were any grounds for the court to intervene in the deportation proceedings. The court also examined the procedural aspects of the application, including the appropriate filing fee and whether Turin had sufficient time to formulate and present her arguments.
The Federal Court found that Turin had not presented any substantive argument to support her application for an injunction. The court held that there was no basis for the applicant to be granted an order of review and dismissed her application. The court noted that sufficient time had elapsed for Turin to formulate and present any arguments she had in support of her application. Furthermore, the court rejected the argument that the $200 filing fee would constitute an undue burden for Turin, as there was no evidence presented to substantiate this claim. Consequently, the court denied Turin's application for an injunction to restrain the execution of the deportation order.
In conclusion, the Federal Court dismissed Turin's application for an order to restrain the execution of the deportation order issued against her. The court found that Turin had not presented any sufficient argument to warrant the issuance of an injunction. The court also noted that there was ample time for Turin to formulate and present her arguments. The orders of the court were that Turin's application be dismissed and that the deportation order remain in effect.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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
Full text does not contain this section.