Specialist in Australian Immigration, Migration Consultant and Online Australian Visa Assessment Service.
Australian Immigration Specialists - Australian Immigration Consultants Online Australian Visa Assessments for immigration to Australia
  Research Home

Categories
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Federal Court
Federal Magistrates Court
Full Federal Court
High Court
Migration Review Tribunal
Other Jurisdictions
Refugee Review Tribunal
Recently Added
Re Patterson; Ex parte Taylor [2001] HCA 51 (6 September 2001)
Singh v Commonwealth of Australia [2004] HCA 43 (9 September 2004)
Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal; Lie v Refugee Review Tribunal [2002] HCA 30

"Use the Migration Specialists that migration agents use"
Cases


1 Although the notice of appeal contains eight grounds, the appellants have raised only three points. Two of those points, namely the matters raised in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the notice of appeal, are conceded by Mr Kolotau, who has appeared for himself and his wife, to be factually wrong. We need not trouble with them anymore.

2 The remaining five grounds, raise a question of constitutional power. This is most precisely stated in ground 4, namely:

"That it is beyond the power of the Commonwealth to enact legislation under the Migration Act pursuant to sections 474, 475 and 476, having an unjust effect on individual and citizens of Australia."

3 The constitutional validity of this legislation was considered by a Full Court of this Court in NAAV v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 228. The Full Court unanimously held the legislation is not constitutionally invalid. This Court is bound by that decision.

Kolotau v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [20

Kolotau v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 421 (5 December 2002)
Last Updated: 13 December 2002


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Kolotau v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

[2002] FCAFC 421


SIONE KOLOTAU and FELIUAKI KOLOTAU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

N 966 of 2002

WILCOX, SPENDER AND RYAN JJ

5 DECEMBER 2002

SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA



NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 966 of 2002




BETWEEN:
SIONE KOLOTAU

FELIUAKI KOLOTAU

APPELLANTS


AND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT


JUDGES:
WILCOX, SPENDER AND RYAN JJ


DATE OF ORDER:
5 DECEMBER 2002


WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY




THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellants pay the costs of the respondent, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA



NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 966 of 2002




BETWEEN:
SIONE KOLOTAU

FELIUAKI KOLOTAU

APPELLANTS


AND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT




JUDGES:
WILCOX, SPENDER AND RYAN JJ


DATE:
5 DECEMBER 2002


PLACE:
SYDNEY





REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT:

1 Although the notice of appeal contains eight grounds, the appellants have raised only three points. Two of those points, namely the matters raised in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the notice of appeal, are conceded by Mr Kolotau, who has appeared for himself and his wife, to be factually wrong. We need not trouble with them anymore.

2 The remaining five grounds, raise a question of constitutional power. This is most precisely stated in ground 4, namely:

"That it is beyond the power of the Commonwealth to enact legislation under the Migration Act pursuant to sections 474, 475 and 476, having an unjust effect on individual and citizens of Australia."

3 The constitutional validity of this legislation was considered by a Full Court of this Court in NAAV v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 228. The Full Court unanimously held the legislation is not constitutionally invalid. This Court is bound by that decision.

4 We are informed by counsel for the Minister that notices have been given to the various Attorneys-General under s 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903. Accordingly, it is open to us to deal with the constitutional point. Having regard to the decision of the Full Court in NAAV, we have no alternative other than to reject the claim made by the appellant in respect of the constitutional validity of the legislation. This means that there is no basis upon which the appeal can succeed.

5 Accordingly, the order of the Court will be that the appeal be dismissed and the appellants pay the costs of the respondent.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Court.




Associate:

Dated: 5 December 2002

The appellants appeared in person.







Counsel for the Respondent:
Mr T Reilly






Solicitor for the Respondent:
Australian Government Solicitor






Date of Hearing:
5 December 2002


Australia Immigration Consultants and Online Australia Visa Assessments for immigration to Australia