Leung, L. v. Gibbons, W.J. [1985] FCA 135

Leung, L. v. Gibbons, W.J. [1985] FCA 135

There was no evidence that the delegate failed to consider or appropriately weigh relevant considerations, including the citizenship of the applicant's child and the needs of the grandmother. There was no indication that the delegate acted according to inflexible policy, or applied the law unreasonably. Consequently, there was no serious question to be tried to justify a further stay of the deportation order.

Parties
Applicant: Lai Leung; First Respondent: Wayne Julian Gibbons, Delegate of the Minister of State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs; Second Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 March 1985
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application (stay of Deportation Order) / Application for Interim Stay; Reasons for Dismissal of Stay Renewed
Outcome
application for stay dismissed
Legal Topics
Deportation, Judicial Review, Stay Applications, Relevant Considerations, Discretionary Powers, Humanitarian Grounds
Immigration Law Administrative Law Deportation Judicial Review Stay Applications Relevant Considerations Discretionary Powers Humanitarian Grounds

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lai Leung

Applicant

Wayne Julian Gibbons, Delegate of the Minister of State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs

First Respondent

Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application (stay of Deportation Order) / Application for Interim Stay; Reasons for Dismissal of Stay Renewed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether delegate failed to take relevant considerations into account in making deportation order
  2. 2 Whether discretionary power was exercised in accordance with policy rather than individual merit
  3. 3 Whether the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable person would have made it

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence that the delegate failed to consider or appropriately weigh relevant considerations, including the citizenship of the applicant's child and the needs of the grandmother. There was no indication that the delegate acted according to inflexible policy, or applied the law unreasonably. Consequently, there was no serious question to be tried to justify a further stay of the deportation order.

Court Disposition

application for stay dismissed

Orders

  • The application be dismissed.