Mumtaz, K.K. v Newson, M. & Anor Mumtaz, S. v The Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs [1995] FCA 517

Mumtaz, K.K. v Newson, M. & Anor Mumtaz, S. v The Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs [1995] FCA 517

The Minister proved by clear and cogent evidence that Mr Mumtaz made statements false in a material particular when he stated that $782,000 had been transferred to Australia, that he and his wife had a $36,000 loan asset in Talib Australia Pty Ltd, and that there was a solid partnership in Talib Australia. The Minister did not prove that the statement about three commission agents or Mrs Mumtaz's answer that she had never worked in Australia was false or misleading in a material particular. Because Mrs Mumtaz's application was dependent on Mr Mumtaz's application, she was taken to have made or caused to be made the first three statements. Both applications therefore failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 July 1995
Procedural Posture
Federal Court Applications Seeking Declaratory and Consequential Relief Concerning Notices Deeming the Applicants Illegal Entrants Under the Migration Act 1958 / Final Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Both applications dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['permanent Resident Entry Permits' 'false or Misleading Statements in a Material Particular' 'illegal Entrants' 'business Migration Programme' 'onus of Proof' 'standard of Proof' 'proof of a Negative']
['immigration' 'evidence' 'administrative Law'] ['permanent Resident Entry Permits' 'false or Misleading Statements in a Material Particular' 'illegal Entrants' 'business Migration Programme' 'onus of Proof' 'standard of Proof' 'proof of a Negative']

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

Federal Court Applications Seeking Declaratory and Consequential Relief Concerning Notices Deeming the Applicants Illegal Entrants Under the Migration Act 1958 / Final Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Minister proved that statements made or caused to be made in respect of the grant of Permanent Resident Entry Permits were false or misleading in a material particular.' 'Whether the statement that $782,000 in cash, goods and personal effects had been transferred to Australia between 1985 and 1990 was false or misleading in a material particular.' 'Whether the statement that Mr and Mrs Mumtaz had an asset in the form of a loan to Talib Australia Pty Ltd in the sum of $36,000 was false or misleading in a material particular.' 'Whether the statement that the applicants had a solid partnership in Talib Australia was false or misleading in a material particular.' 'Whether the statement that Euro Aussie Enterprises Pty Ltd was employing three commission agents for New South Wales was false or misleading in a material particular.' "Whether Mrs Mumtaz's answer that she had never worked in Australia was false or misleading in a material particular." 'Whether statements made by Mr Mumtaz in support of the dependent permanent residence application were also to be taken as made or caused to be made by Mrs Mumtaz.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Minister proved by clear and cogent evidence that Mr Mumtaz made statements false in a material particular when he stated that $782,000 had been transferred to Australia, that he and his wife had a $36,000 loan asset in Talib Australia Pty Ltd, and that there was a solid partnership in Talib Australia. The Minister did not prove that the statement about three commission agents or Mrs Mumtaz's answer that she had never worked in Australia was false or misleading in a material particular. Because Mrs Mumtaz's application was dependent on Mr Mumtaz's application, she was taken to have made or caused to be made the first three statements. Both applications therefore failed.

Court Disposition

Both applications dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['In proceedings No NG 934 of 1993, the application be dismissed.' "In proceedings No NG 934 of 1993, the applicant pay the respondents' costs." 'In proceedings No NG 185 of 1994, the application be dismissed.' "In proceedings No NG 185 of 1994, the applicant pay the respondent's costs."]