Sok v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 56

Sok v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 56

Regulation 1.23(2)(b) of the Migration Regulations does not confine 'violence' to physical violence; psychological, emotional, or financial abuse by a spouse that causes fear for personal well-being or safety can constitute relevant domestic violence for partner visa purposes under Australian law.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Full Court Decision on Appeal From Federal Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
['domestic Violence' 'partner Visa Eligibility' 'statutory Interpretation' 'appellate Precedent']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'family Law'] ['domestic Violence' 'partner Visa Eligibility' 'statutory Interpretation' 'appellate Precedent']

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 / Full Court Decision on Appeal From Federal Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether 'violence' in Migration Regulation 1.23(2)(b) requires physical force or threat thereof" "Whether 'violence' in the context of domestic violence provisions can include psychological/emotional violence" 'Significance and binding nature of Full Court decision in Cakmak v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs']

Ratio Decidendi

Regulation 1.23(2)(b) of the Migration Regulations does not confine 'violence' to physical violence; psychological, emotional, or financial abuse by a spouse that causes fear for personal well-being or safety can constitute relevant domestic violence for partner visa purposes under Australian law.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • ['The appeal be allowed.' 'The decision of the primary judge be set aside.' 'The matter be remitted to the Migration Review Tribunal for further consideration according to law.' "The first respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal and of the proceeding before the primary judge."]