Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Pannu v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 152 Migration Act 1958 (Cth)ss 116(1), 366C Pannu v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2006] FMCA 883 HABIR KAUR PANNU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 1437 OF 2006
NICHOLSON J
20 FEBRUARY 2007
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1437 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: HABIR KAUR PANNU
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: NICHOLSON J
DATE OF ORDER: 19 FEBRUARY 2007
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The description of the first respondent be amended to 'Minister for Immigration and Citizenship'. 2. The appeal be dismissed. 3. The appellant pay the first 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 NSD 1437 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: HABIR KAUR PANNU
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: NICHOLSON J
DATE: 20 FEBRUARY 2007
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 At the conclusion of the hearing of this appeal it was dismissed with costs. The following are the reasons why such orders were made. 2 The appeal was brought against a judgment of a Federal Magistrate (Emmett FM) of 7 July 2006 (Pannu v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2006] FMCA 883) dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) of 11 January 2006 affirming a decision of a delegate of the first respondent of 23 September 2004 to cancel the appellant's visa. 3 At the commencement of the appeal it was apparent that the appellant was not present and that her husband was present to assist the Court by representing her if that was possible. For reasons delivered following oral submissions for the first respondent, the request for this to occur was refused. 4 There was also passed to the Court a written application from the appellant's husband seeking an adjournment of the hearing of the appeal. For reasons delivered at the hearing, the application was refused. 5 The consequence was that the appeal proceeded with only the first respondent before the Court.
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