Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Bridges v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 470
IMMIGRATION – deportation order – error of law - appeal from Administrative Appeals Tribunal - whether the applicant ought to be permitted to adduce fresh evidence – whether the Tribunal failed to take into account the hardship the applicant will suffer – whether irrelevant considerations taken into account – whether error of law was material to the Tribunal's decision Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 200, 201, 499 Servos v Repatriation Commission (1995) 56 FCR 377 followed
Percerep v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (1998) 86 FCR 483 followed
Hyundai Automotive Distributors v Australian Customs Service (1998) 81 FCR 590 applied
RONALD HENRY BRIDGES v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
W 155 OF 2000
MARSHALL J
MELBOURNE (HEARD IN PERTH)
27 APRIL 2001
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY W155 OF 2000
BETWEEN: RONALD HENRY BRIDGES
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: MARSHALL J
DATE OF ORDER: 27 APRIL 2001
WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs, including reserved costs, if any. 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 W155 OF 2000
BETWEEN: RONALD HENRY BRIDGES
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: MARSHALL J
DATE: 27 APRIL 2001
PLACE: MELBOURNE (HEARD IN PERTH)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 7 September 2000, the applicant, Mr Ronald Bridges, filed a Notice of Appeal from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("AAT") given on 10 August 2000. In its decision the AAT affirmed the decision of a delegate of the respondent to order Mr Bridges' deportation. The hearing of the appeal took place on 28 February 2001. Mr S Walker of counsel appeared for the applicant. Mr P Macliver of counsel appeared for the respondent. 2 The applicant's Notice of Appeal outlined three grounds of appeal. Additionally, Mr Walker informed the Court that he proposed to rely on a new ground of appeal. The new ground alleged that the AAT had taken into account irrelevant considerations in coming to its decision. 3 Mr Macliver ultimately did not oppose leave being granted for the additional ground to be raised, but opposed any suggestion that the application be adjourned on account of Mr Walker's late discovery of the new ground. The Court declined to adjourn the matter and proceeded on the basis that Mr Walker would submit a written reply to the oral submissions of Mr Macliver. Mr Macliver was offered the opportunity of responding in writing to Mr Walker's written reply. All written submissions were filed and served by 4 April 2001. 4 I will firstly consider the original grounds for appeal raised in the Notice of Appeal. I will then consider the additional ground raised at the hearing.
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