Can, Lu v Martin Robyn & Anor [1995] FCA 708

Federal Court of Australia

Document text

CATCHWORDS Practice and procedure - Claim disclosing no reasonable cause of action - Dismissal. Federal Court Rules O 20 r 2 General Steel Industries Inc v. Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125 Drake v. Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 24 ALR 577 LU CAN v ROBYN MARTIN AS DELEGATE OF THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS and THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS VG 385 of 1994 COURT: Sundberg J PLACE: Melbourne DATE: 5 September 1995

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No VG 385 of 1994 GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: LU CAN Applicant AND: ROBYN MARTIN AS DELEGATE OF THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS First Respondent AND: THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS Second Respondent COURT: Sundberg J DATE: 5 September 1995 PLACE: Melbourne MINUTES OF ORDER The Court orders that: 1. The Application be struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action. 2. The applicant pay the respondents' costs of the Motion. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No VG 385 of 1994 GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: LU CAN Applicant AND: ROBYN MARTIN AS DELEGATE OF THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS First Respondent AND: THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS Second Respondent COURT: Sundberg J DATE: 5 September 1995 PLACE: Melbourne REASONS FOR JUDGMENT SUNDBERG J: The applicant seeks to review the decision of the first respondent that the applicant and members of his family be refused permission to migrate to Australia. The first respondent is the delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. The second respondent is the Minister. The respondents have applied under Order 20 r.2 of the Federal Court Rules for the proceeding to be dismissed as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

Read full text →

Official source

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.

Not checked yet

Last checked with source on —

Open official source

Checking whether the official page can be embedded…

Study brief

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.

Unknown

No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.

You've got 21 of 22 free Acts left this visit. Sign up anytime for Facts, Related, and study briefs too.

Document text

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No VG 385 of 1994 GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: LU CAN Applicant AND: ROBYN MARTIN AS DELEGATE OF THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS First Respondent AND: THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS Second Respondent COURT: Sundberg J DATE: 5 September 1995 PLACE: Melbourne REASONS FOR JUDGMENT SUNDBERG J: The applicant seeks to review the decision of the first respondent that the applicant and members of his family be refused permission to migrate to Australia. The first respondent is the delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. The second respondent is the Minister. The respondents have applied under Order 20 r.2 of the Federal Court Rules for the proceeding to be dismissed as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

Read full text →