Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Buultjens v Robertson [2009] FCA 1537
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 351, 476A Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 31A Beyazkilinc v Manager, Baxter Immigration Reception & Processing Centre (2006) 155 FCR 465 referred to Raikua v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2007) 158 FCR 510 referred to
LLEWELLYN FREDRICK BUULTJENS v STUART ROBERTSON
VID 850 of 2009
MARSHALL J
18 DECEMBER 2009
MELBOURNE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
general division VID 850 of 2009
BETWEEN: LLEWELLYN FREDRICK BUULTJENS
Applicant
AND: STUART ROBERTSON
Respondent
JUDGE: MARSHALL J
DATE OF ORDER: 18 DECEMBER 2009
WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application is dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs, to be taxed in default of agreement. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court's website.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
general division VID 850 of 2009
BETWEEN: LLEWELLYN FREDRICK BUULTJENS
Applicant
AND: STUART ROBERTSON
Respondent
JUDGE: MARSHALL J
DATE: 18 DECEMBER 2009
PLACE: MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant, Mr Buultjens, has commenced a proceeding in this Court seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent, Mr Robertson, to submit to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship the applicant's request for special ministerial intervention under s 351 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). 2 The Minister had previously considered and rejected a request by the applicant that he intervene under s 351 of the Act to permit the applicant to remain in Australia. 3 The respondent has objected to the competency of the application. The application, he submits, is not within the jurisdiction of this Court due to the operation of s 476A of the Act. That section limits the Court's jurisdiction in migration matters to those set out in s 476A(1); see Beyazkilinc v Manager, Baxter Immigration Reception & Processing Centre (2006) 155 FCR 465 at [51]–[52] per Besanko J. See also Raikua v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2007) 158 FCR 510 at [64] per Lindgren J. 4 As the decision sought to be challenged is not one referred to in s 476A(1) of the Act, the respondent's objection to the competency of the application is made out. The proceeding is dismissed pursuant to s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) as the Court is satisfied that the applicant has no reasonable prospects of successfully prosecuting the proceeding. 5 The order of the Court is that the application is dismissed with costs, to be taxed in default of agreement. I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Marshall.
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