FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NAMU of 2002 v Secretary, Department of Immigration Indigenous & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 908

MIGRATION – application for declaration that s 196 of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) constitutionally invalid – separate question

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

NAMU OF 2002, NAMV OF 2002, NAMW OF 2002, NAMX OF 2002, NAMY OF 2002 AND NAMZ OF 2002 V SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

NO. N 636 OF 2002

BEAUMONT ACJ

4 JULY 2002

SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 636 OF 2002

BETWEEN:	NAMU OF 2002 NAMV OF 2002 NAMW OF 2002 NAMX OF 2002 NAMY OF 2002 NAMZ OF 2002 APPLICANTS
AND:	SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS FIRST RESPONDENT MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	BEAUMONT ACJ
DATE OF ORDER:	4 JULY 2002
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application be dismissed.

2. Costs reserved, liberty reserved to the parties to make submissions on costs within fourteen days.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 636 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

NAMU OF 2002

NAMV OF 2002

MAMW OF 2002

NAMX OF 2002

NAMY OF 2002

NAMZ OF 2002

APPLICANTS

AND:

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	BEAUMONT ACJ
DATE:	4 JULY 2002
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BEAUMONT ACJ:

1 In these proceedings, at the commencement of the final hearing of the matter, I suggested to the parties that it may be appropriate to deal with the question of the constitutional validity of s 196 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) as a preliminary or separate question and, by consent, I so ordered. For the reasons I have given in that connection, I have held that s 196 is a valid law of the Commonwealth.

2 Having ordered that the separate question be answered in those terms, I have now inquired of counsel for the applicants whether any matter remains to be dealt with in the principal proceedings. He has, correctly in my view, indicated to the Court without any dissent from the respondents, that it must follow from my answer to the separate question, that the principal proceedings themselves should be dismissed.

3 Accordingly, I order that the application, being the principal proceedings, be dismissed.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Acting Chief Justice Beaumont.

Acting Associate:

Dated: 19 July 2002

Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr R Killalea

Solicitor for the Applicant:	D Graham & Associates

Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr H Burmester QC

Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor

Date of Hearing:	4 July 2002

Date of Judgment:	4 July 2002

Top