Federal Court of Australia
» '
_
Sok |
¥ ok
aa one
re
THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
3 Wns, avs?
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
VG No. 377 of 1986
vT
»
GENERAL DIVISION
wee ww
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT
ay an
.?
Between: ELIZABETH WANIEWSKA
(Applicant)
Foamy
oy fay
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS
|
<a ne ete peep mo er eter
(Respondent)
Wa
'oe
Coram: Ryan Jd.
Date: 7 November 1986
ata boie-adl
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
a en
HIS HONOUR: This is the adjourned hearing of an application r.
for interlocutory relief by way of an order restraining
the respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic t Affairs, from taking any steps to implement an order [ made for the deportation of the applicant until the determination of this application or further order. By | her application, the applicant contends that a decision
taken by the Delegate of the respondent Minister to t
order that the applicant be deported should be reviewed
on the qrounds that the applicant was denied natural justice in the course of the making of the decision, in that she was given no sufficient opportunity to be
heard before the decision was made.
A second ground relied on in the application is that the making of the decision was an improper exercise of the power conferred by the Migration Act 1958 in that irrelevant considerations were taken into account, relevant considerations were not taken into account, or the discretion reposed in the Minister was exercised in accordance with a rule or policy without regard to the merits of the applicant's case. The final sub-paragraph of ground 2 1s that the exercise of the power by the delegate of the Minister was so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have so
exercised the power.
Both counsel who appeared before me accepted, at least by implication, that the approach to be taken by the court on an interlocutory application of this kind is to enquire first whether the applicant has established that there 1s a serious question to be tried, and if satisfied as to the existence of such an issue, to consider whether the balance of convenience favours the
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