Le v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 640

Le v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 640

The Court refused interlocutory relief because, on the decision record and submissions relied upon, the applicant did not satisfy the serious issue to be tried threshold. With no strength on that limb to weigh in the balance of convenience, the balance of convenience alone could not justify restraining continued...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of the Minister's Decision to Cancel the Applicant's Subclass Bb/155 Resident Visa Pursuant to S 501 of the Migration Act 1958 (cth) / Interlocutory Notice of Motion Seeking to Restrain Immigration Detention and Removal Pending Hearing or Further Order
Outcome
Notice of motion refused, with directions for notice before removal and for further steps to advance the substantive application.
Legal Topics
['visa Cancellation Under S 501' 'immigration Detention' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'natural Justice' 'best Interests of Children' 'balance of Convenience']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['visa Cancellation Under S 501' 'immigration Detention' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'natural Justice' 'best Interests of Children' 'balance of Convenience']

Source-derived case record

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

Application for Review of the Minister's Decision to Cancel the Applicant's Subclass Bb/155 Resident Visa Pursuant to S 501 of the Migration Act 1958 (cth) / Interlocutory Notice of Motion Seeking to Restrain Immigration Detention and Removal Pending Hearing or Further Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant established a serious issue to be tried concerning jurisdictional error in the visa cancellation decision.' 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured interlocutory relief restraining continued immigration detention.' 'Whether the respondent should be restrained from removing the applicant from Australia without notice pending the proceeding.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused interlocutory relief because, on the decision record and submissions relied upon, the applicant did not satisfy the serious issue to be tried threshold. With no strength on that limb to weigh in the balance of convenience, the balance of convenience alone could not justify restraining continued detention, despite matters favourable to the applicant.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion refused, with directions for notice before removal and for further steps to advance the substantive application.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion be refused.' 'The respondent not remove the applicant from Australia without giving to the Courts and the applicant 14 days notice of such intention.' "Within 14 days the respondent file and serve any further affidavits in response to the issues raised in the applicant's supporting submissions...