Pinpoint · Judgment search

Mandavi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs

[2002] FCA 70

Federal Court of Australia · 8 February 2002 · Official judgment

Cited by 1 indexed judgment

All Cited 1

2005: 1 citing judgment 2002 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
citing judgments per year of which distinguished, doubted, not followed or overruled · line marks the decision

Sort: Oldest first Newest first Most cited

  1. VBAS v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 212 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 11× · judgment

Tree of authority

Built on

The authorities this case relies on, earliest first, and the authorities those relied on. Open a branch to go further back.

Built upon

Later cases citing this one, in order of decision, and the cases citing them in turn. The most cited are shown at each level.

Authorities cited (8)

Earliest first, with how this judgment treated each.

  1. Selvadurai v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 34 ALD 347 Cited cited 113×
  2. Randhawa v MILGEA [1994] FCA 1253 Cited cited 448×
  3. Kopalapillai, Sutharsan v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1998] FCA 1126 Cited cited 139×
  4. Wang v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1599 Cited cited 40×
  5. Gersten v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 855 Cited cited 17×
  6. Kord v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1163 Not followed cited 8×
  7. Applicant Z v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1714 Cited cited 3×
  8. Ahwazi v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1818 Cited cited 3×
How the citator works

Citations are read from the text of each indexed judgment. A report citation written alongside a neutral citation, such as [2008] HCA 9; (2008) 234 CLR 50, teaches the citator that both name the same case, so later citations by either are counted together.

Treatment is read from the words in the sentence that cites the case: overruled or disapproved; not followed or declined to follow; distinguished or distinguishable; doubted; applied, followed or adopted. Anything else is cited. It is a guide to which judgments to read, not a judicial history: a judgment that discusses a case at length without one of those words is shown as citing it, and one mentioning several cases in a sentence may attach the word to all of them.

Only judgments in this index are counted, mostly the High Court, the Federal Court and New South Wales courts and tribunals since 2006. Earlier cases appear as authorities but their own authorities are unknown, so a tree ends there. Check a treatment by reading the passage before relying on it.

Judgment text is from the Open Australian Legal Corpus (Isaacus, CC BY 4.0) and the courts’ own websites. Each judgment links to its official version: read it before relying on anything here.