Lee v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 354

Lee v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 354

The application was dismissed under Order 35A rule 3(1)(a) of the Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth) because the applicants failed to prosecute their application with due diligence, did not appear at the hearing, and provided no satisfactory explanation for prior non-appearance; even if explanation provided, no merit in underlying review application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Appeal From Federal Magistrates Court
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['application for Leave to Appeal' 'dismissal for Non Prosecution' 'extension of Time' 'transitional (temporary) (class Ua) Visas']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Appeal From Federal Magistrates Court

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted despite late application' 'Whether explanation for non-appearance at prior hearing was satisfactory' 'Whether merits exist to set aside dismissal for absence' 'Whether the failure to prosecute application with due diligence warrants dismissal']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed under Order 35A rule 3(1)(a) of the Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth) because the applicants failed to prosecute their application with due diligence, did not appear at the hearing, and provided no satisfactory explanation for prior non-appearance; even if explanation provided, no merit in underlying review application.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The name of the first respondent be amended to Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.' 'The application be dismissed.' "Hea Ran Lee, the first-named applicant, pay the first respondent's costs of the application." 'The costs specified in the immediately preceding order be fixed in a sum of $600.']