Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Wong v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCAFC 163
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – question referred to Full Court in appeal under s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) – Court should decide whether or not the answering of a question by witness would be contrary to the public interest on the merits Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), ss 36, 36(1), 36A, 36D, 44 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 19(2) Alister v R (1984) 154 CLR 404 cited Chapman v Luminis Pty Ltd (No 2) (2000) 100 FCR 229 cited Collector of Customs v Agfa-Gevaert Limited (1996) 186 CLR 389 cited Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic Enterprises Pty Ltd (1993) 43 FCR 280 cited Commissioner of Taxation v Roberts (1992) 37 FCR 246 cited HBF Health Funds Inc v Minister for Health and Ageing (2006) 149 FCR 291 cited Sankey v Whitlam (1978) 142 CLR 1 cited TNT Skypak International (Aust) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 82 ALR 175 cited WONG TAI SHING v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA NSD 274 OF 2006
GYLES, CONTI AND LANDER JJ
16 NOVEMBER 2006
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 274 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED BY DEPUTY PRESIDENT PROFESSOR GD WALKER
BETWEEN: WONG TAI SHING
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
First Respondent
ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Second Respondent
JUDGES: GYLES, CONTI AND LANDER JJ DATE OF ORDER: 16 NOVEMBER 2006
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ANSWERS THE REFERRED QUESTION AS FOLLOWS:
Does the Court on an appeal under section 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 ('the Act') in relation to whether under section 36A of the Act the answering of a question would not be contrary to the public interest: (a) make a decision on the merits, by reaching its own opinion? ANSWER: Yes (b) determine the issue by reference to whether there was an error of law in the forming by the Attorney-General of his opinion; ANSWER: No or (c) determine the issue on some other basis? ANSWER: Does not arise
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate