Faingold, Aleksander & Ors v Zammit, Walter & Anor [1984] FCA 1

Faingold, Aleksander & Ors v Zammit, Walter & Anor [1984] FCA 1

The appeal failed because the appellants could not establish a serious question to be tried regarding the legality of their detention and removal under s.36A of the Migration Act; the authorised officer was entitled to believe they were seeking to enter Australia as prohibited immigrants; the rules of natural justice did not apply to such decisions; and the primary judge did not err in refusing interim relief or an adjournment.

Parties
Appellant: Aleksander Faingold; Appellant: Espira Faingold; Appellant: Pavel Faingold; Respondent: Walter Zammit; Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 January 1984
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Decision on Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court and on Associated Notice of Motion
Outcome
appeal dismissed; notice of motion dismissed
Legal Topics
Entry Permit Refusal, Detention of Non Citizens, Application of Natural Justice, Judicial Review Under Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act
Immigration Entry Permit Refusal Detention of Non Citizens Application of Natural Justice Judicial Review Under Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aleksander Faingold

Appellant

Espira Faingold

Appellant

Pavel Faingold

Appellant

Walter Zammit

Respondent

Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Decision on Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court and on Associated Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the proper test for granting a stay pending review or appeal?
  2. 2 Was the authorised officer entitled to form the belief that the appellants were seeking to enter Australia in circumstances in which they would become prohibited immigrants?
  3. 3 Were the appellants entitled to natural justice in decisions under s.36A of the Migration Act?

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the appellants could not establish a serious question to be tried regarding the legality of their detention and removal under s.36A of the Migration Act; the authorised officer was entitled to believe they were seeking to enter Australia as prohibited immigrants; the rules of natural justice did not apply to such decisions; and the primary judge did not err in refusing interim relief or an adjournment.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; notice of motion dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal and the notice of motion be dismissed.
  • The appellants pay the costs of the appeal and the notice of motion.