Turin, Gloria v Hurford, Christopher John

[1987] FCA 801

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