Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 1213

Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 1213

Where the applicant repeatedly seeks adjournments and ultimately fails to appear at the hearing, it is appropriate to dismiss the application pursuant to rule 35.33 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) and order costs against the applicant.

Parties
First Applicant: Randeep Kaur; Second Applicant: Gurpreet Singh Uppal; Third Applicant: Harjashanpreet Singh Uppal; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Border Protection; Second Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Dismissal of Application for Extension of Time to Seek Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for extension of time and leave to appeal dismissed; costs ordered against applicants
Legal Topics
Application for Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Judicial Review, Visa Cancellation, Dismissal for Non Appearance
Migration Law Administrative Law Application for Extension of Time Leave to Appeal Judicial Review Visa Cancellation Dismissal for Non Appearance

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Randeep Kaur

First Applicant

Gurpreet Singh Uppal

Second Applicant

Harjashanpreet Singh Uppal

Third Applicant

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

First Respondent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Dismissal of Application for Extension of Time to Seek Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant an extension of time to seek leave to appeal
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted from an interlocutory judgment
  3. 3 Appropriateness of dismissal for non-appearance

Ratio Decidendi

Where the applicant repeatedly seeks adjournments and ultimately fails to appear at the hearing, it is appropriate to dismiss the application pursuant to rule 35.33 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) and order costs against the applicant.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time and leave to appeal dismissed; costs ordered against applicants

Orders

  • The application for an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal be dismissed pursuant to rule 35.33 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).
  • The Applicants pay the First Respondent's costs fixed in the amount of $4,822.52.