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

The appellant has filed written submissions contending that the learned primary judge was in error in two respects. First, as to the operation of the provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) that form the basis of the decision, and secondly, as to the operation in a case such as this of s 474 of the Migration Act.

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairsv Kwan [2002]

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairsv Kwan [2002] FCAFC 380 (27 November 2002)
Last Updated: 28 November 2002


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs v Kwan [2002] FCAFC 380


MIGRATION - orders by consent setting aside judgment of primary judge - no question of principle.

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 25(2B)(b).

Federal Court Rules O 35 r 10A

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS v KAR LAM KWAN

V260 of 2002

BLACK CJ, NORTH AND WEINBERG JJ

27 NOVEMBER 2002

MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA



VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
V260 OF 2002





On appeal from a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia

BETWEEN:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

APPELLANT


AND:
KAR LAM KWAN

RESPONDENT


JUDGE:
BLACK CJ, NORTH AND WEINBERG JJ


DATE OF ORDER:
27 NOVEMBER 2002


WHERE MADE:
MELBOURNE




THE COURT ORDERS BY CONSENT THAT:

1. The judgment and orders of the Honourable Justice Finkelstein dated 23 April 2002 be set aside.

2. In lieu thereof it be ordered that:

(a) the application for an order of review of the decision of the Migration Review Tribunal dated 9 October 2001 be dismissed; and

(b) there be no order as to costs of the application.

3. There be no order as to costs of the appeal.

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
V260 OF 2002





On appeal from a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia

BETWEEN:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

APPLICANT


AND:
KAR LAM KWAN

RESPONDENT




JUDGE:
BLACK CJ, NORTH AND WEINBERG JJ


DATE:
27 NOVEMBER 2002


PLACE:
MELBOURNE





REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 The appellant has appealed from orders made by a judge of this Court granting an application for judicial review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal affirming a decision by a delegate of the Minister to refuse the respondent's application for a temporary student visa.

2 The appellant seeks orders in the following terms:

"1. That the judgment and orders of The Honourable Justice Finkelstein dated 23 April 2002 be set aside.

2. That in lieu thereof it be ordered that:

(a) The application for an order of review of the decision of the Migration Review Tribunal dated 9 October 2001 be dismissed; and

(b) There be no order as to costs of the application.

3. That there be no order as to costs of the appeal."


3 The respondent has, through his solicitors, indicated that he has completed his studies in Australia and he has returned to Hong Kong, and that he consents to the orders proposed by the Minister.

4 The appellant has filed written submissions contending that the learned primary judge was in error in two respects. First, as to the operation of the provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) that form the basis of the decision, and secondly, as to the operation in a case such as this of s 474 of the Migration Act.

5 The Court has power to make an order by consent disposing of an appeal to the Court: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 25(2B)(b). The order may be made "in accordance with the terms of a written consent of the parties to a proceeding, or their representatives on the record". The order has the same force and validity as if it had been made after a hearing by the Court: Federal Court Rules, O 35 r 10A.

6 We have read the outline of submissions of the appellant and note the Minister's submission that the decision of the primary judge about the construction of the relevant provisions of the Migration Act has not been followed in other cases and on one occasion has been said to be "plainly wrong": Zou v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 1126 at [30]-[31]; see also Gurung v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 772 at [11]; Siddique v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 1226 at [20]-[25]. In a judgment given after the judgment under appeal, the learned primary judge noted the omission of a reference, in the judgment under appeal, to a provision of the legislation, which he described as favouring the Minister's argument: Habib v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 1003 at [6].

7 It is, however, unnecessary to express an opinion about the approach taken by the learned primary judge on the construction point because the decision cannot stand consistently with the subsequent decision of the Full Court in NAAV v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 228 about the effect of s 474 of the Migration Act where, as here, there is a privative clause decision.

8 In these circumstances, we are prepared to make the orders sought by consent.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Court




Associate:

Dated: 27 November 2002

Counsel for the Appellant:
S G E McLeish






Solicitor for the Appellant:
Blake Dawson Waldron






Solicitor for the Respondent:
Wayne Wong & Associates






Date of Hearing:
27 November 2002






Date of Judgment:
27 November 2002


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