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:
- AGLC
- Yong v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1993] FCA 1088
- Case
- [1993] FCA 1088
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.