Cheung, S.W. & Anor v. The Hon. Hurford, C.J. & Anor [1985] FCA 624

bet

NOTE: Not considered appropriate for reporting or for : general distribution.

~ mio io co — ,Qa

cae 5 : IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY No. VG 256 of 1985

GENERAL DIVISTON

BETWEEN :

SHIU_WAH CHEUNG and JOANNE HUONG LAM Applicants

and

THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER JOHN HURFORD, MINISTER OF STATE FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS Respondent

MINUTES OF ORDER

COURT: Woodward J.

DATE: 22 November 1985

PLACE: Melbourne

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application be dismissed with costs.

2. Leave to appeal be refused.

(NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in 0.36 of

the Federal Court Rules.)

"a

NOTE: Not considered appropriate for reporting or for general distribution.

(AEW) IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY No. VG 256 of 1985

GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN :

SHIU_ WAH CHEUNG and JOANNE HUONG LAM Applicants

and

THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER JOHN HURF'ORD, MINISTER OF STATE FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS Respondent

COURT: Woodward J.

DATE: 22 November 1985 PLACE: Melbourne

EXTEMPORE JUDGMENT

This is an application for the stay of deportation of an applicant for an order of review, pursuant to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, of a number of decisions made within the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.

Those decisions are set out at length in the application, but there are, I think, only two decisions that are seriously challenged. The first was a decision not to grant a temporary entry permit, and the second related decision was to

deport the first~-named applicant.

implications ~ were not taken into account by the delegate, and

that in that sense there was a failure to take into account

relevant considerations.

However, I am satisfied that the delegate did take into account the marriage and the implications of it. I think one must remember that the statements of reasons given by delegates or ministers in a case such as this, have typically to be prepared with some speed. In the present case I granted an interim injunction on the llth of this month, required the applicants to serve affidavits in support of their application by the 19th of the month, and made it returnable today, being the 22nd.