Federal Court of Australia
ASS
GENERAL DIVISION
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION NOT REQUIRED
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIAN DISTRICT REGISTRY No. VG 102 of 1987
BETWEEN:
THERRANCE WILLIAM NOLAN
Applicant
AND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION
AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS AND COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Respondents
22 MAY, 1987 KEELY J.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 22 September 1985 the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (the Minister) signed an order for the deportation of Therrance William Nolan (the applicant). On 11 October 1985 an application was lodged by the applicant for the review of that decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The execution of the deportation order was, pending the proposed hearing by the Tribunal, stayed by an order made by the Tribunal by consent. The respondents released the applicant from custody subject to certain conditions, agreed to by him, as to regular reporting to the
department.
On 8 December 1985 the Minister signed a statement of
reasons for his decision pursuant to s. 37 of the
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. It appears that
those reasons were given to the applicant's solicitors on or
about 11 December 1985.
In or about February 1986 the applicant failed to report to the Minister's department in accordance with the agreed conditions. It also appears that he did not contact his solicitors at all during the period from late November 1985 until November 1986. In the meantime, on 4 June 1986, his application was dismissed, there being no appearance for
him in support of that application.
The applicant now seeks, amongst other proposed orders set out in his notice of motion, filed 4 May 1987, an order under s. 11(1)(c) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (the Judicial Review Act) that the "period in which the Applicant may make application for an order to review the decision of the firstnamed respondent to deport him ... be extended to a date to be fixed by the Court". In the hearing of that motion it has been conceded by Mr. Tracey, of counsel, on behalf of the respondents, that, if the applicant is granted an extension of time then, on the material presently before the court, the applicant has an
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