Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Cohen [2001] HCA 10

Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Cohen [2001] HCA 10

The Tribunal did not commit a jurisdictional error; it considered the relevant factors (notably the child's age) and acted in accordance with established authority (Huang). Even if there was an error of law or fact, it did not rise to jurisdictional error, so constitutional relief must be refused.

Parties
Applicant: Meir Cohen; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Second Respondent: Julie Bail, Member of the Migration Review Tribunal; Third Respondent: Sue Tongue, Principal Member of the Migration Review Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Application for Injunction and Orders Nisi (prohibition, Mandamus, Certiorari) / Determination of Application and Final Order
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Jurisdictional Error, Migration Regulation Interpretation, Relief Under Constitution, Writs of Prohibition and Mandamus
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Jurisdictional Error Migration Regulation Interpretation Relief Under Constitution Writs of Prohibition and Mandamus

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 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Meir Cohen

Applicant

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

First Respondent

Julie Bail, Member of the Migration Review Tribunal

Second Respondent

Sue Tongue, Principal Member of the Migration Review Tribunal

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Injunction and Orders Nisi (prohibition, Mandamus, Certiorari) / Determination of Application and Final Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Migration Review Tribunal made a jurisdictional error
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was entitled to have his application determined on the basis that the 'special need relative' criterion was still available
  3. 3 Whether the applicant established an arguable case warranting constitutional relief

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not commit a jurisdictional error; it considered the relevant factors (notably the child's age) and acted in accordance with established authority (Huang). Even if there was an error of law or fact, it did not rise to jurisdictional error, so constitutional relief must be refused.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs.