S1083/2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1455

S1083/2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1455

The reasoning in Ozmanian applied to the present applications. Although s 476(2) is not in precisely the same language as the former s 485(1), the differences were immaterial. Section 476(2) denied the Federal Court jurisdiction to consider the conduct of Ms Connolly in relation to the second s 417 requests, so the applications were incompetent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Applications Under S 39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) and the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) Concerning Conduct or Decisions Under the Migration Act 1958 (cth) / Final Determination of Respondents' Jurisdictional Objection
Outcome
Applications dismissed as incompetent with costs against the applicants in favour of the first and third respondents.
Legal Topics
['ministerial Intervention Under S 417 of the Migration Act 1958 (cth)' 'jurisdictional Bar Under S 476(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (cth)' 'review of Departmental Officer Conduct' 'natural Justice and Procedural Fairness' 'carltona Principle']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'federal Jurisdiction' 'practice and Procedure'] ['ministerial Intervention Under S 417 of the Migration Act 1958 (cth)' 'jurisdictional Bar Under S 476(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (cth)' 'review of Departmental Officer Conduct' 'natural Justice and Procedural Fairness' 'carltona Principle']

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

Applications Under S 39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) and the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) Concerning Conduct or Decisions Under the Migration Act 1958 (cth) / Final Determination of Respondents' Jurisdictional Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction to review the decision or conduct of a departmental officer not to take further action on second requests to the Minister under s 417 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).' "Whether s 476(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) deprived the Court of jurisdiction in respect of the applicants' claims under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)."]

Ratio Decidendi

The reasoning in Ozmanian applied to the present applications. Although s 476(2) is not in precisely the same language as the former s 485(1), the differences were immaterial. Section 476(2) denied the Federal Court jurisdiction to consider the conduct of Ms Connolly in relation to the second s 417 requests, so the applications were incompetent.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed as incompetent with costs against the applicants in favour of the first and third respondents.

Orders

  • ['In proceeding N 920 of 2004, the application be dismissed as incompetent.' 'In proceeding N 920 of 2004, the applicants pay the costs of the first and third respondents.' 'In proceeding N 1111 of 2004, the application be dismissed as incompetent.' 'In proceeding N 1111 of 2004, the applicant pay the costs of the...