Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'suing'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Moving to Australia
    • Visa Chat
    • Skilled Visas
    • Family / Partner Visas
    • Temporary Visas
    • Business Skills Visas
    • Business Sponsored
    • Working Holiday Visas
    • Shipping and Removals
  • Life in Australia
    • Aussie Chat
    • Household
    • Renting & Real Estate
    • Money & Finance
    • Education
    • Health
    • Careers and Vacancies
    • Kids Down Under
    • Pets
    • Socialising Hobbies Clubs Sport
    • Travel
  • Australian States & Territories
    • ACT
    • New South Wales
    • Northern Territory
    • Queensland
    • South Australia
    • Tasmania
    • Victoria
    • Western Australia
  • Partner Forums
    • Money Transfer: Ask Moneycorp
    • Financial Advice: Ask Vista
    • Shipping Pets: Ask Pet Air
  • Moving to the UK
    • UK Chat
    • Education
    • Where to Live?
    • Money and Finance
  • PomsInOz Specific
    • Chewing the fat


  • Migration
  • Living in Australia
  • Jobs and Careers
  • Moving to Australia Real Life Stories
  • Money and Finance
  • Transport
  • Where to live in Australia?
    • Victoria
    • Queensland
    • New South Wales
    • Tasmania
    • Western Australia
    • South Australia
  • Backpacking
  • News
  • Forum Help


There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



Found 2 results

  1. Woman suing the Australian government. Its on sky news ............. on its teletext section, so it must be correct. :mad: A woman visiting a remote area of Australia was staying in a hotel and she was having sex with her partner, or someone ............ could have been anyone, when ................ the light fitting fell down hitting her in the face, breaking her tooth slashing open her face, where she needed stitches and she is suing the government ............. surely any claim should be against the hotel and ................ Just how frantic were they going at it to bring the ceiling lights down.:laugh:
  2. According to an MIA's notice to members on 23 July 2010: Legal Challenges to Cap and Cease Letters Some MIA Members have received letters from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) indicating that some of their clients’ applications have been capped and ceased.There is some speculation within the profession that the letters from DIAC can be challenged on the basis that applicants might be able to enforce the processing of their applications because of a "legitimate expectation" arising from section 65 of the Migration Act 1958that the Minister would determine their application.The MIA has sought legal advice in relation to this argument, with preliminary assessment suggesting that a challenge to the legislation on the above premise would be difficult and that case law demonstrates that appeals on the basis of this argument have, in the past, been unsuccessful.The MIA reminds Members of their obligations under the Code of Conduct, particularly with respect to advising clients of the costs associated with pursuing a particular course of action pursuant to Clause 5.3 of the Code.Further, Part 8B of the Act provides that costs may be awarded against third parties, such as Registered Migration Agents (RMAs), who contravene section 486E, which provides that a person must not encourage another person to engage in migration litigation that has no reasonable prospects of success.An extract of the legal advice in relation to potential arguments in a challenge to the cap and cease letters has been provided for Members below. Legitimate Expectation There is a principle that no cause of action arises from a valid change in the law that causes disadvantage to an affected person.In Health Insurance Commission v Peverill (1994) 179 CLR 226, at 261, McHugh J quoted with approval the observation of Pitney J in New York Central RR Co v White (1917) 243 US 188 at 198 that:No person has a vested interest in any rule of law entitling him to insist that it shall remain unchanged for his benefit. The above principle was applied in several cases that challenged Migration Amendment Regulations 2006 (No 4), which introduced a new requirement for outstanding skilled visa applications that an applicant’s qualification leading to a positive skills assessment must have been obtained as a result of full time study in a "registered course" as defined in Regulation 1.03 . The effect of this amendment was that applicants who had already obtained a positive skills assessment, but not in a "registered course", were no longer eligible for a visa.There were a number of simultaneous challenges to the amendments in the Federal Magistrates Court. The issue was eventually resolved in favour of the Minister, and no doubt at great expense to the applicant, by the decision on appeal of Sundberg J in Quarm v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2008) 171 FCR 307, which was handed down on 22 August 2008. Estoppel Some have further speculated that the letters from DIAC can be challenged on the basis that the Minister may be estopped from refusing to process the applications.There is a well-established rule of law that, where the Parliament, within the Constitution, has provided in legislation that a particular circumstance has a particular consequence, nothing a public servant does can override the legislation.For example, in Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Wade (1951) 84 CLR 105 Kitto J said, at 117:No conduct on the part of the commissioner could operate as an estoppel against the operation of the Act....See also Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Sabri Polat (1995) 37 ALD 394.Assessment of this argument also suggests that a challenge would be difficult, and the MIA again reminds Members of their obligations to advise clients of the costs associated with pursuing a particular course of action and that a person must not encourage another person to engage in migration litigation that has no reasonable prospects of success.