Gacias, J. & Ors v. Hurford, C.J. & Ors [1985] FCA 666

Gacias, J. & Ors v. Hurford, C.J. & Ors [1985] FCA 666

The Court found that the delegate did not merely apply departmental policy inflexibly but had proper regard to the individual circumstances advanced, and there was no failure to consider relevant matters as the decision-maker dealt with the material provided, including child care and financial issues. No serious question to be tried was established to justify granting the interlocutory injunction.

Parties
First Applicant: Josephine Gacias; Second Applicant: Wilma Smith (nee Gacias); Third Applicant: Oliver Smith by his next friend Wilma Smith; Fourth Applicant: Leilani Smith by her next friend Wilma Smith; First Respondent: Christopher John Hurford, Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs; Second Respondent: Wayne Gibbons, Regional Director to the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs; Third Respondent: Richard Wilson, an officer authorised under the Migration Act
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 1985
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Application—reasons for Judgment, Orders on Application
Outcome
Application for interlocutory relief refused
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunction, Judicial Review Grounds, Application of Policy, Relevant Considerations
Administrative Law Migration Law Interlocutory Injunction Judicial Review Grounds Application of Policy Relevant Considerations

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Josephine Gacias

First Applicant

Wilma Smith (nee Gacias)

Second Applicant

Oliver Smith by his next friend Wilma Smith

Third Applicant

Leilani Smith by her next friend Wilma Smith

Fourth Applicant

Christopher John Hurford, Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs

First Respondent

Wayne Gibbons, Regional Director to the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs

Second Respondent

Richard Wilson, an officer authorised under the Migration Act

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Application—reasons for Judgment, Orders on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decision to refuse an entry permit was an inflexible application of policy
  2. 2 Whether the delegate failed to take into account relevant circumstances in refusing the temporary entry permit
  3. 3 Whether there was a failure to consider relevant matters regarding child care and the health of the children

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the delegate did not merely apply departmental policy inflexibly but had proper regard to the individual circumstances advanced, and there was no failure to consider relevant matters as the decision-maker dealt with the material provided, including child care and financial issues. No serious question to be tried was established to justify granting the interlocutory injunction.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory relief refused

Orders

  • The application for interlocutory relief is refused.
  • Applicants to pay the costs of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in respect of this interlocutory application.