Twinn v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 242

Twinn v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 242

Paragraph 4 of the Gazette Notice was invalid as the Minister’s power under regulations 1.03 and 1.17 did not extend to specifying skilled occupations in relation to classes of persons defined by the residential location of sponsors. Therefore, the decision that the appellants’ visa application was invalid was itself invalid and must be quashed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed by majority (Branson and Bennett JJ), Graham J dissenting; orders of primary judge set aside; Minister’s decision quashed and required to determine application according to law; costs to appellants at first instance and appeal.
Legal Topics
['delegated Legislation' 'migration Visas' 'ministerial Powers' 'validity of Administrative Acts']
['administrative Law' 'immigration Law'] ['delegated Legislation' 'migration Visas' 'ministerial Powers' 'validity of Administrative Acts']

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

Appeal / On Appeal From a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Minister's power to specify a skilled occupation by Gazette notice extends to specifying a class of persons by sponsor's area of residence" 'Whether the Gazette notice is inconsistent with the Migration Regulations 1994' 'Whether the Gazette notice constitutes an invalid exercise of legislative rather than administrative power']

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraph 4 of the Gazette Notice was invalid as the Minister’s power under regulations 1.03 and 1.17 did not extend to specifying skilled occupations in relation to classes of persons defined by the residential location of sponsors. Therefore, the decision that the appellants’ visa application was invalid was itself invalid and must be quashed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed by majority (Branson and Bennett JJ), Graham J dissenting; orders of primary judge set aside; Minister’s decision quashed and required to determine application according to law; costs to appellants at first instance and appeal.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be allowed.' 'The orders made by the primary judge on 23 June 2005 be set aside.' "Order in the nature of certiorari issue to quash the respondent's decision that the appellants' visa application is invalid." 'Order in the nature of mandamus issue requiring the respondent to consider the visa...