Chu Sing Wun v The Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs [1995] FCA 815

CATCHWORDS PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - public interest immunity - refusal of permanent visa - refusal based on confidential information - judicial review of decision refusing visa - previous refusal had also been the subject of judicial review - motion for production of documents in those previous proceedings was refused on grounds of public interest immunity - particulars of confidential information sought by way of interlocutory relief in the second proceedings - whether previous decision in respect of public interest immunity forecloses applicant from obtaining particulars - whether, regardless of any such foreclosure an order for particulars should be refused as a matter of discretion - motion for particulars dismissed. Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1973 (Cth) ss.5, 16 CHU SING WUN v. THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS No. WAG 115 of 1994 CARR J. PERTH 13 OCTOBER 1995

IN THE FEDERAL COURT ) OF AUSTRALIA ) WESTERN AUSTRALIA ) DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. WAG 115 of 1994 GENERAL DIVISION ) B E T W E E N : CHU SING WUN Applicant and THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS Respondent CORAM: CARR J. PLACE: PERTH DATE: 13 OCTOBER 1995 MINUTE OF ORDERS THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The applicant have leave to re-amend his application in terms of the minute of proposed re-amended application filed on 18 September 1995. That minute is to stand as the re-amended application without the need to file and serve any further document. 2. The motion is otherwise dismissed. 3. The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs of the motion to be taxed if not agreed. NOTE: Settlement and entry of Orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT ) OF AUSTRALIA ) WESTERN AUSTRALIA ) DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. WAG 115 of 1994 GENERAL DIVISION ) B E T W E E N : CHU SING WUN Applicant and THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS Respondent CORAM: CARR J. PLACE: PERTH DATE: 13 OCTOBER 1995 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Introduction This is a motion on notice whereby the applicant Mr Chu Sing Wun seeks leave to re-amend his application under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1973 (Cth) ("the ADJR Act") in terms of a minute which has been filed, and also seeks an order that the respondent "disclose to the applicant" certain particulars. Factual Background The applicant was born in China and is now resident in Hong Kong. His principal application is for judicial review of the respondent's decision made on 12 September 1994 to refuse his application for a permanent entry visa (Class 122). In summary, the history of this matter [which I have taken largely from the reasons for judgment of Beaumont J. in previous related proceedings: Chu Sing Wun v. Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1992) 118 ALR 345 at p.346] is as follows: 1. In 1987, Mr Chu applied for permission to enter Australia under the Business Migration Program ("BMP"). That application was rejected because the applicant was said to have "failed to meet the character requirements for migrant entry". 2. On 31 October 1991, the applicant applied for a Class 122 visa under the BMP. 3. On 12 February 1992, that application was refused. By letter dated 19 February 1992, the applicant was informed of the decision to refuse his application "on the grounds that [he] does not satisfy the public interest criteria as specified [in the regulations]". 4. On 17 March 1992, the applicant instituted proceedings in this Court (No. WAG 31 of 1992) seeking judicial review of the decision made on 12 February 1992. 5. By letter dated 24 July 1992, the Australian Government Solicitor informed the solicitors for the applicant that the Minister consented to the decision then under review being set aside and "a fresh decision being made concerning your client's application for a resident visa ... I confirm also that my client offers to re-interview your client with a view to allowing him an opportunity to clarify certain information relating to this application." 6. In July 1992, the application in proceedings No. WAG 31 of 1992 was dismissed by consent. 7. On 27 August 1992 the applicant was interviewed in Hong Kong for the purpose of re-considering his application for a Class 122 visa. Prior to this interview, the respondent's department submitted certain written questions to the applicant. At the interview, the applicant was informed that he was given seven days "in which to make a submission". By letter dated 28 August 1992, Business Migration Services Pty Ltd, acting on behalf of the applicant, informed the Australian Consulate-General in Hong Kong that the applicant would not be submitting further material. A decision on his application was requested. 8. By letter dated 30 October 1992, the Minister, by his delegate, informed Business Migration Services Pty Ltd that he had decided to refuse the application. 9. On 26 November 1992 the applicant filed a further application in this Court (No. WAG 195 of 1992) seeking judicial review of the decision made on 30 October 1992 ("the 1992 application"). 10. The 1992 application was heard by Beaumont J. on 19 and 20 October 1993 and his Honour's reserved judgment was delivered on 22 October 1993. His Honour dealt with three of the applicant's grounds for judicial review, namely denial of natural justice, taking into account irrelevant considerations and error of law. His Honour found that there had not been a denial of natural justice and that the decision-maker had not taken into account irrelevant considerations. However, his Honour held that an error of law had been made which it appeared was likely to have influenced the decision-maker. It is not necessary for the purpose of these proceedings to describe the particular error of law. The matter was remitted to the respondent for determination according to law.