Sun & Anor v Minister for Immigration & Anor  FCCA 1266 (18 May 2015)
The Tribunal accepted that the Applicant maintained a level of involvement in the business while she was in China and that the Applicant discussed with her husband aspects of the business through telephone calls and email correspondence. However, the Tribunal was not satisfied that this amounted to direct and continuous involvement in the management of the business from day-to-day (para 17). In particular, it found that the business was managed directly and continuously by the Applicant’s husband for the three month period in 2011 when the Applicant was in China.
Judge Simpson 的看法
In my opinion, on a plain reading of reg.1.11(1)(b) it cannot be said that the Applicant, whilst she was overseas, maintained a direct and continuous involvement in the management of the business from day-to-day, including making decisions, affected the overall direction and performance of the business. Whilst the Applicant may have attempted to continue such an involvement it is practically impossible for her to “directly and continuously” be involved in the management of the business from day-to-day. To suggest otherwise does not accord with common sense. Day-to-day management requires continuity and regular activity by the Applicant. It was not present in this case.
They say that, given the nature of the business and that it required hands-on management, the Tribunal’s conclusion was reasonable, logical and open on the material before it. The Respondent submits that the Court should reject this ground.
以后所有想通过海外管理澳洲普通业务公司的方案基本无法实施，但是进出口公司我认为还是可以考虑given the nature of business。