Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Vaitaiki v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1149 TEVITA MUSIE VAITAIKI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 335 of 1999 HILL, WHITLAM & KATZ JJ 11 AUGUST 1999 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG 335 of 1999
On appeal from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal
constituted by the President
BETWEEN: TEVITA MUSIE VAITAIKI
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGES: HILL, WHITLAM & KATZ JJ
DATE OF ORDER: 11 AUGUST 1999
PLACE: SYDNEY
MINUTES OF ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG 335 of 1999
On appeal from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal
constituted by the President
BETWEEN: TEVITA MUSIE VAITAIKI
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGES: HILL, WHITLAM & KATZ JJ
DATE: 11 AUGUST 1999
PLACE: SYDNEY
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 HILL J: I agree with the reasons for judgment given by Katz J. 2 I would add this. I am conscious of the very significant importance of this appeal to the applicant. For this reason, I have read very carefully the judgment of the learned President with a view to seeing whether some legal error was to be found in it. I have done this because I am conscious of the difficulty Mr Vaitaiki has as an unrepresented person in arguing an appeal in this Court. 3 Ultimately, the issue before her Honour, giving the weight required to be given to the matters in the general direction, was a matter of balancing various considerations. It was her Honour's view that the present was a case where the expectations of the Australian community prevailed over some other considerations. She said that Mr Vaitaiki posed too great a risk to the community to be allowed to remain in Australia, notwithstanding the impact that his deportation would have upon his family members, particularly his children. 4 This Court has no jurisdiction to consider for itself such an exercise of discretion. It is for the Tribunal to do that. This Court's jurisdiction is limited to questions of law and I can detect no error of law in her Honour's decision. 5 I would accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs.
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