Lay, Max & Ors v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs & Anor [1996] FCA 433

Lay, Max & Ors v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs & Anor [1996] FCA 433

Even if the Tribunal had referred to the wrong provisions, the applicants conceded that the predecessor provisions had the same relevant effect and required the same conclusion that the third applicant was an illegal entrant and not an Australian permanent resident. Any error could not have changed the Tribunal's result, so quashing and remitting would be futile and the application had to be dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 May 1996
Procedural Posture
Application to Review a Decision of the Immigration Review Tribunal Affirming Refusal to Grant a December 1989 (temporary) Entry Permit / Federal Court Judgment on Application for Review
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['december 1989 (temporary) Entry Permit' 'australian Permanent Resident' 'illegal Entrant' 'judicial Review' 'futility of Remitter' 'costs']
['immigration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['december 1989 (temporary) Entry Permit' 'australian Permanent Resident' 'illegal Entrant' 'judicial Review' 'futility of Remitter' 'costs']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application to Review a Decision of the Immigration Review Tribunal Affirming Refusal to Grant a December 1989 (temporary) Entry Permit / Federal Court Judgment on Application for Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal erred by relying on ss. 8 and 14 of the Migration Act 1958 rather than predecessor provisions when determining whether the third applicant was an Australian permanent resident.' "Whether any such error could have altered the Tribunal's conclusion that the third applicant was an illegal entrant and not an Australian permanent resident for regulation 131A(1)(d)(v)." "Whether it would be futile to quash the Tribunal's decision and remit the matter for rehearing." 'Whether costs should be ordered against the applicants.']

Ratio Decidendi

Even if the Tribunal had referred to the wrong provisions, the applicants conceded that the predecessor provisions had the same relevant effect and required the same conclusion that the third applicant was an illegal entrant and not an Australian permanent resident. Any error could not have changed the Tribunal's result, so quashing and remitting would be futile and the application had to be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed with costs.']