Federal Court of Australia
CATCHWORODS
Administrative Law - Judicial review - deportation of prohibited
immigrant - whether failure to pay regard to relevant matters - whether alleged departmental oversight a relevant matter - whether
failure to consider same an error of law.
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 s.5, s.13
MIGRATION ACT 1958 s.6(2A), s.6A, s.18
The Queen v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1979) 144 C.L.R. 45
Sean Investments Pty. Limited v McKellar (1981) 38 A.L.R. 363
Pochi v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1983) 43 A.L.R. 261
SERVET AYGUN v THE HONOURABLE JOHN CHARLES HODGES
Minister of State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs
Fisher J. Adelaide
11 March 1983.
IN_THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
) SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. G33 of 1982
) GENERAL DIVISION )
BETWEEN SERVET AYGUN Applicant - and - THE HONOURABLE JOHN CHARLES HODGES Minister of State for Immigration
and Ethnic Affairs
Respondent
ORDER JUDGE MAKING ORDER : Fisher J. WHERE MADE 3 Adelaide DATE 3 11 March 1983
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: l. The application of Servet Aygun for a review of the decision of
the respondent be dismissed.
2. The applicant to pay the costs of the respondent the
same to be taxed if not agreed,
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
) SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. G33 of 1982
) GENERAL DIVISION )
BETWEEN: SERVET AYGUN Applicant - and - THE HONOURABLE JOHN CHARLES HODGES Minister of State for Immigration
and Ethnic Affairs
Respondent
Coram: Fisher J.
11 March 1983
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
In this matter Servet Aygun ("the applicant") seeks the review
pursuant to s.5 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review} Act
1977 ("the Review Act") of a decision by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs ("the Minister") to deport him from Australia. The delegate of the Minister made the order pursuant to s.18 of the Migration Act 1958 ("the Act"), ordering on 9 October 1981 the deportation of the applicant as a prohibited immigrant, as indeed he was. Counsel for the applicant during the hearing ultimately identified and confined the only error of law alleged as having been made in making the deportation order as follows: "The error of law is that the delegate failed to consider a relevant circumstance, namely that the applicant was not advised on or about 18 December 1980 that he might eventually be
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