Leung, L. v. Gibbons, W.J. & Ors [1985] FCA 72

Leung, L. v. Gibbons, W.J. & Ors [1985] FCA 72

The application failed due to a lack of evidence before the court as to what was or was not considered by the decision-maker; therefore, the applicant did not discharge the burden of proof required for interlocutory or final relief.

Parties
Applicant: Lal 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
11 March 1985
Procedural Posture
Order of Review Application Under Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) / Interlocutory Application for Stay of Deportation Order; Final Orders on Application for Interlocutory Relief
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs; interim stay of deportation extended for a limited period.
Legal Topics
Deportation Orders, Judicial Review, Relevant Considerations in Administrative Decision Making, Discretionary Power and Policy, Interim Stay of Orders
Administrative Law Immigration Law Deportation Orders Judicial Review Relevant Considerations in Administrative Decision Making Discretionary Power and Policy Interim Stay of Orders

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lal 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

Order of Review Application Under Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) / Interlocutory Application for Stay of Deportation Order; Final Orders on Application for Interlocutory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent failed to take all relevant considerations into account in making the deportation order
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent exercised discretionary power in accordance with a rule or policy without regard to the particular merits, or unreasonably

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed due to a lack of evidence before the court as to what was or was not considered by the decision-maker; therefore, the applicant did not discharge the burden of proof required for interlocutory or final relief.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs; interim stay of deportation extended for a limited period.

Orders

  • Application be dismissed.
  • Applicant pay the respondents' costs.