{ tooltip = 'Copied'; setTimeout(() => tooltip = 'Copy Link', 2000); })" :data-tip="tooltip" class="tooltip tooltip-primary tooltip-bottom" class="cursor-pointer" role="button">
Applicant VEAL of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs
Download as PDF
Download as Word
Highlights
My Notes
Collections
Create a New Collection
Overview
Full Text
{ tooltip = 'Copied'; setTimeout(() => tooltip = 'Copy Link', 2000); })" :data-tip="tooltip" class="tooltip tooltip-primary tooltip-bottom" class="cursor-pointer" role="button">
Details
Case
Agency Issuance Number
Published Date
Applicant VEAL of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs
[2005] HCA 72
Tags
No tags available
Case
Applicant VEAL of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs
[2005] HCA 72
•
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIAGLEESON CJ,GUMMOW, KIRBY, HAYNE AND HEYDON JJAPPLICANT VEAL OF 2002 APPELLANTANDMINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS & ANOR RESPONDENTSApplicant VEAL of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCA 726 December 2005M16/2005ORDER1. Appeal allowed with costs.2.Set aside the orders of the Full Court of the Federal Court made on 9 July 2004 and, in their place, order that the appeal to that Court be dismissed with costs.On appeal from the Federal Court of AustraliaRepresentation:D S Mortimer SC with R M Niall for the appellant (instructed by Victoria Legal Aid)A L Cavanough QC with J D Pizer for the first respondent (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)No appearance for the second respondentNotice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.CATCHWORDSApplicant VEAL of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs Immigration – Application for protection visa – Decision of Refugee Review Tribunal – Procedural fairness – Where Tribunal reviewed an unsolicited letter received by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, which made allegations against the appellant – Where Tribunal did not inform the appellant of the existence of the letter or its contents – Where Tribunal affirmed decision under review and said that in reaching its decision it gave no weight to the letter – Whether procedural fairness required the Tribunal to inform the appellant of the existence of the letter or its contents.Words and...
Continue reading the full case
Tags
No tags available
Case
Applicant VEAL of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs
[2005] HCA 72
•
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIAGLEESON CJ,GUMMOW, KIRBY, HAYNE AND HEYDON JJAPPLICANT VEAL OF 2002 APPELLANTANDMINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS & ANOR RESPONDENTSApplicant VEAL of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCA 726 December 2005M16/2005ORDER1. Appeal allowed with costs.2.Set aside the orders of the Full Court of the Federal Court made on 9 July 2004 and, in their place, order that the appeal to that Court be dismissed with costs.On appeal from the Federal Court of AustraliaRepresentation:D S Mortimer SC with R M Niall for the appellant (instructed by Victoria Legal Aid)A L Cavanough QC with J D Pizer for the first respondent (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)No appearance for the second respondentNotice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.CATCHWORDSApplicant VEAL of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs Immigration – Application for protection visa – Decision of Refugee Review Tribunal – Procedural fairness – Where Tribunal reviewed an unsolicited letter received by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, which made allegations against the appellant – Where Tribunal did not inform the appellant of the existence of the letter or its contents – Where Tribunal affirmed decision under review and said that in reaching its decision it gave no weight to the letter – Whether procedural fairness required the Tribunal to inform the appellant of the existence of the letter or its contents.Words and...
showFlash = false, 6000)"
>