Re The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Fejzullahu [2000] HCA 23

Re The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Fejzullahu [2000] HCA 23

Applicants failed to demonstrate a serious question to be tried as there was no evidence that the Minister's decisions were unreasonable or procedurally unfair; the Minister considered relevant matters, including UNHCR recommendations, and was not under a duty to follow UNHCR advice or provide a further opportunity to be heard.

Parties
Prosecutors: Mevlud Fejzullahu & Ors; Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 April 2000
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Relief / Decision on Interlocutory Injunction Applications
Outcome
applications dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Writ of Mandamus, Ministerial Discretion, Migration Visas, Procedural Fairness, Public Interest Discretion
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Interlocutory Injunctions Writ of Mandamus Ministerial Discretion Migration Visas Procedural Fairness +1 more

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mevlud Fejzullahu & Ors

Prosecutors

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Relief / Decision on Interlocutory Injunction Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Minister's decision under s 91L of the Migration Act 1958 is amenable to relief under s 75(v) of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether there is a serious question to be tried as to the Minister acting unreasonably
  3. 3 Whether procedural fairness required further opportunity to applicants to be heard if Minister disagreed with UNHCR recommendations

Ratio Decidendi

Applicants failed to demonstrate a serious question to be tried as there was no evidence that the Minister's decisions were unreasonable or procedurally unfair; the Minister considered relevant matters, including UNHCR recommendations, and was not under a duty to follow UNHCR advice or provide a further opportunity to be heard.

Court Disposition

applications dismissed with costs

Orders

  • In the case of each summons, the application is dismissed with costs.