Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
He v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1368
HAI QING HE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N 901 of 2001 SACKVILLE J SYDNEY 19 SEPTEMBER 2001
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 901 OF 2001
BETWEEN: HAI QING HE
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: SACKVILLE J
DATE OF ORDER: 19 SEPTEMBER 2001
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The notice of motion filed in Court on 19 September 2001 be dismissed. 2. The sixth applicant in proceedings N 901 of 2001, Hai Qing He, pay the respondent's costs. 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 N901 OF 2001
BETWEEN: HAI QING HE
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: SACKVILLE J
DATE: 19 SEPTEMBER 2001
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application by way of notice of motion seeking an order that a person identified as the applicant, namely Mr Hai Qing He ("Mr He"), not be removed from Australia pending what has been described as an appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court. The motion has been heard at very short notice, as Mr He is to be removed from Australia and returned to China tomorrow unless an injunction is granted by the Court to restrain his removal. 2 The short background is this. Proceedings have been instituted in this Court (N901 of 2001) by eight applicants, including Mr He. The applicants claim damages for breach of a duty said to have been owed to them by the respondent ("the Minister") and Australasian Correctional Management Limited ("ACM"). The breach relates to assaults that are alleged to have taken place on 27 April 2001, while the applicants (who were unlawful non-citizens) were detained at the Villawood Detention Centre. 3 An application was brought by five of the eight applicants seeking interlocutory orders restraining the Minister from removing them until a variety of proceedings had been determined, including the action for damages commenced in this Court. Emmett J heard this application yesterday and delivered an ex tempore judgment today dismissing the claim for interlocutory relief. It should be noted that the other three applicants in the proceedings claiming damages against the Minister and ACM did not join in the application for interlocutory relief, since they have either been removed from the country or have left of their own accord. 4 The notice of motion before me is apparently brought only by Mr He. Mr He seeks interlocutory orders because the Minister has given 72 hours notice, as contemplated by an undertaking provided on the Minister's behalf to the Court, that he intends to remove Mr He from Australia. The removal is scheduled to take place, as I understand it, at 12.35 pm tomorrow. None of the other four applicants in the damages claim who are still in Australia seeks similar relief, apparently because the Minister has not yet given notice that he intends to remove them from Australia.
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