Ho, Christopher v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1998] FCA 1326

Ho, Christopher v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1998] FCA 1326

Even if the Tribunal's interpretation of subregulation 2.29(1) was incorrect, it was not a material error, because after the repeal of the regulation, subsequent payment of the extra fee was no longer permissible, and the Minister—and thus Tribunal—had no power to grant the transition (permanent) visa on the basis of criteria for a category 805 permit for which no application and fee were made.

Parties
Applicant: Christopher Ho; Respondent: Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 October 1998
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Transitional Visa Applications, Judicial Review, Regulation Interpretation, Entry Permit Fees
Immigration Transitional Visa Applications Judicial Review Regulation Interpretation Entry Permit Fees

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Ho

Applicant

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Immigration Review Tribunal correctly interpreted subregulation 2.29(1) of the Migration (1993) Regulations
  2. 2 Whether an incorrect interpretation constituted a material error
  3. 3 Whether the Minister had the power to grant a visa based on criteria for a permit not applied for and not paid for

Ratio Decidendi

Even if the Tribunal's interpretation of subregulation 2.29(1) was incorrect, it was not a material error, because after the repeal of the regulation, subsequent payment of the extra fee was no longer permissible, and the Minister—and thus Tribunal—had no power to grant the transition (permanent) visa on the basis of criteria for a category 805 permit for which no application and fee were made.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application be dismissed with costs.