Zhang v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

Case •

[2005] FCA 912

•

4 JULY 2005

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Zhang v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 912

JIAN ZHANG v LUKE KALLAUR and MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

V 580 of 2004

RYAN J
4 JULY 2005
MELBOURNE


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 580 of 2004

BETWEEN:

JIAN ZHANG
Applicant

AND:

LUKE KALLAUR
First Respondent

AND

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
Second Respondent

JUDGES:

RYAN J

DATE OF ORDER:

4 JULY 2005

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for review of the Tribunal’s decision dated 7 April 2004 be granted.

2.The said decision of the Tribunal be set aside.

3.The matter be remitted to the Tribunal to be heard and determined according to law.

4.The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the application, including any reserved costs, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 580 of 2004

BETWEEN:

JIAN ZHANG
Applicant

AND:

LUKE KALLAUR
First Respondent

AND

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
Second Respondent

JUDGES:

RYAN J

DATE:

4 JULY 2005

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

SUPPLEMENTARY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. In reasons for judgment published on 31 May 2005 I indicated that an argument might have been available to the Minister that the applicant could not satisfy the requirements of subcl 457.222(1)(a) of the Migration Regulations (“the Regulations”) even if, on a correct application of subcl 457.221 of the Regulations, he could establish substantial compliance with the conditions to which his bridging visa was subject.  However, the solicitors for the Minister have indicated, presumably in the light of the repeal, on 12 May 1999, of Reg 457.222, that the Minister does not wish to address any further submissions to that issue.  In the same letter it was indicated that the solicitors for the Minister did not oppose an order for costs in favour of the applicant.

  2. Accordingly, the order of the Court, consistent with my earlier reasons, will be that:

    (1)The application for review of the Tribunal’s decision dated 7 April 2004 be granted.

    (2)The said decision of the Tribunal be set aside.

    (3)The matter be remitted to the Tribunal to be heard and determined according to law.

    (4)The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the application, including any reserved costs, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Ryan.

Associate:

Dated:             4 July 2005

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr R Niall

Solicitor for the Applicant:

Erskine Rodan & Associates

Counsel for the Second Respondent:

Mr E Heerey

Solicitor for the Second Respondent:

Blake Dawson Waldron

Date of Hearing:

14 December 2004

Date of Judgment:

31 May 2005

Date of Supplementary Judgment:

4 July 2005
Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0