Yong v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs

Case [1993] FCA 1088


IN THE FEDERAL COURT )
OF AUSTRALIA )
WESTERN AUSTRALIA )
DISTRICT REGISTRY
) No. WAG 215 of 1992
GENERAL DIVISION )

ON APPEAL from his Honour, Mr Justice Lee, in the Federal Court of Australia

BE TWEEN:

ZHANG DE YONG

Applicant

-and-

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND

ETHNIC AFFAIRS

Respondent

CORAM:  BLACK CJ, LOCKHART and FRENCH JJ
PLACE:  PERTH
DATE:  19 MARCH 1993

REASONS FOR nJDGMENT

(Ex Tempore)

THE COURT

the ordinary way at the trial. In particular, we are not persuaded that any serious practical inconvenience would result to the Minister if leave to appeal were refused

The Court is not persuaded that this is a case in which leave to appeal from an

interlocutory decision from a judge of this Court should be granted. The points that it is desired to raise on appeal, if leave were granted, are points of substantial

importance but we see no compelling reason why these points should not be argued in

and the matter were to proceed to trial in the ordinary way. Accordingly, we would dismiss the application for leave to appeal and order that the respondent to the

proceedings pay the applicant's costs.

Date:

Details
AGLC
Yong v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1993] FCA 1088
Case
[1993] FCA 1088
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Zhang De Yong, the applicant, appealed against the decision of Mr Justice Lee in the Federal Court of Australia, seeking leave to appeal an interlocutory decision. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the respondent, opposed the application. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, Western Australia, District Registry.

The legal issues before the Court were whether leave should be granted to appeal an interlocutory decision and whether any serious practical inconvenience would result to the Minister if leave were refused. The Court also considered the importance of the points to be raised on appeal and whether they could be argued at trial.

The Court found that the points to be raised on appeal were of substantial importance, but there was no compelling reason why they should not be argued at trial. The Court was not persuaded that refusing leave to appeal would cause any serious practical inconvenience to the Minister. Therefore, the Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and ordered that the respondent pay the applicant's costs.

The Court's decision was that leave to appeal from an interlocutory decision should not be granted, and the appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the applicant.

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.