Federal Court of Australia
\ , Jo? CATCHWORDS
Administrative law judicial review - application for stay of deportation order - order of review sought on various grounds relating to pending workers' compensation and damages claims - failure by applicant to establish that 4 serious question to be tried in relation to any ground - applicant filed s. 13 statement of reasons but objected to respondent's
tender of it as evidence - whether admissible
DALLIKAVAK v THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR IMMIGRATION ~ . AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS - VG No. 37 of 1985
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, ss, 5, 13, 15
Migration Act 1958, ss. 18 and 20
Federal Court Rules, Order 54 Rule 3(1)(b)
CORAM : KEELY J.
DATE
22 MARCH, 1985
PLACE
MELBOURNE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
GENERAL DIVISION VG No. 37 of 1985
wee Vw
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
BETWEEN:
KADIR DALLIKAVAK
Applicant AND:
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS
Respondent
22 MARCH, 1985 KEELY J.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The applicant has applied under s. 5 of the
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act (the Judicial
Review Act) to review decisions by the respondent Minister on or about 15 February, 1985 which are described in the
application as follows :-
"(a) to deport the applicant from Australia;
(b) to confirm the deportation order which had been made in respect of the applicant on or about 4th October, 1984 .
(c) to require that the Applicant be deported from Australia by 28th February, 1985; and
(d) to take the Applicant into custody."
The present hearing relates to an application under
s. 15 of the Judicial Review Act for orders suspending the
2.
operation of each of the decisions, pending the hearing and determination of the application, and staying all proceedings under those decisions. Orders to that effect were made ex parte on 26 February, 1985 until 1 March, 1985 and on subsequent dates those orders were continued so as to enable the hearing and determination of the application under s. 15. The principles applicable to such an application were dealt with by Sweeney, Lockhart and Sheppard JJ. in Faingold v Zammit (1984) 1 F.C.R. 87 at pp. 92-91. The applicant must establish that there is a serious question to be tried. rf
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