NAEX v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 1633

NAEX v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 1633

The application for interlocutory relief was refused because no serious question to be tried was established; the grounds raised were not available for review due to the privative clause in the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), and there was no evidentiary basis for bad faith by the Tribunal. The balance of convenience did not favour relief, and removal was statutorily required under s 198(6).

Parties
Applicant: NAEX; Respondent: Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application for Interlocutory Relief / Interlocutory, Application for Injunction Pending Final Hearing
Outcome
Application for interlocutory relief refused with costs.
Legal Topics
Constitutional Writs, Interlocutory Injunction, Privative Clause, Judicial Review, Removal of Unlawful Non Citizen
Migration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Writs Interlocutory Injunction Privative Clause Judicial Review Removal of Unlawful Non Citizen

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 2 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NAEX

Applicant

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application for Interlocutory Relief / Interlocutory, Application for Injunction Pending Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a serious question to be tried as to entitlement to constitutional writs against decision affirming refusal of bridging visa
  2. 2 Whether balance of convenience favours interlocutory relief restraining removal from Australia
  3. 3 Construction of s 198(6) Migration Act 1958 (Cth) as it relates to removal during pending court proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The application for interlocutory relief was refused because no serious question to be tried was established; the grounds raised were not available for review due to the privative clause in the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), and there was no evidentiary basis for bad faith by the Tribunal. The balance of convenience did not favour relief, and removal was statutorily required under s 198(6).

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory relief refused with costs.

Orders

  • The application for interlocutory relief be refused.
  • The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application for interlocutory relief.