Kong Lee Yin v The Commonwealth [1970] HCA 34

High Court of Australia Owen J. Kong Lee Yin v The Commonwealth [1970] HCA 34

ORDER Action dismissed with costs.

Cur. adv. vult.

Owen J. delivered the following written judgment:—

Oct. 2 Owen J

In each of these cases, which were heard together, a deportation order under s. 18 of the Migration Act 1958-1966 Cth was made against the plaintiff upon the ground that he was a prohibited immigrant and in each case the plaintiff seeks an injunction restraining the defendants from carrying that order into effect upon the ground that it was not validly made.

The facts were agreed upon by the parties and the arguments were based upon those in the action (No. 9 of 1969) brought by Kong Lee Yin, it being agreed that the fate of the other two cases depended upon the view taken of the submissions of law put forward in Kong Lee Yin's case.

Kong Lee Yin, a Chinese national, first entered Australia on 28th May 1961. On that day he was granted an entry permit under the Act permitting him to stay in Australia for a period of three months. On 1st September 1961 he applied for a further entry permit for a period of six months to run from that date and on 6th September 1961 a permit was granted to run until 28th November 1961. On 8th November 1961 he applied for a further entry permit for a period of six months to run from 28th November 1961 and on 9th November 1961 a permit was granted to run until 28th February 1962. On 20th February 1962 he applied for a further entry permit for six months but no permit was issued pursuant to that application. On 13th June 1962 he applied for a further entry permit and on the same date a permit was issued expiring on 2nd July 1962. On 1st May 1967 he applied for a further entry permit for a period of twelve months and on that day a permit was issued expiring on 1st May 1968. On 11th October 1968 a deportation order was made against him. It will be seen from this summary of the facts that there were occasions when a period of time elapsed between the expiration of one entry permit and the grant of another one. It will be seen also that except in the case of the permit issued in May 1967 the periods for which the permits were granted differed from the periods for which the plaintiff had applied.