Pinpoint · Judgment search

SZVYD v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

[2019] FCA 648

Federal Court of Australia · 14 May 2019 · Official judgment

Cited by 0 indexed judgments

No indexed judgment cites this case yet.

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.

Authorities cited (15)

Earliest first, with how this judgment treated each.

  1. Yang v Carroll (1994) 852 F Supp 460 Cited cited 11×
  2. Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [1997] HCA 25 Cited cited 344×
  3. A v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1997] HCA 4 Cited cited 414×
  4. Z v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1998] FCA 1578 Cited cited 3×
  5. Lama v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 918 Cited
  6. Chen Shi Hai v The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] HCA 19 Cited cited 155×
  7. Aala v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 204 Cited cited 4×
  8. WAEZ of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 341 Cited cited 5×
  9. Appellant S395/2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] HCA 71 Cited cited 270×
  10. Applicant S v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2004] HCA 25 Applied or followed cited 78×
  11. Roach v Electoral Commissioner [2007] HCA 43 Cited cited 32×
  12. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZNWC and Another [2010] 190 FCR 23 Cited
  13. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZNWC [2010] FCAFC 157 Cited cited 9×
  14. MZZTW v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 475 Cited cited 2×
  15. SZVYD v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2017] FCCA 2909 Cited cited 2×
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.