BPB17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 814

BPB17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 814

The applicant's explanation for delay was inadequate and, crucially, the proposed grounds of appeal lacked merit, being too general and unsupported by evidence, so extension of time was refused.

Parties
First Applicant: BPB17; Second Applicant: BPC17; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Border Protection; Second Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Migration Application for Extension of Time for Leave to Appeal / Application for Extension of Time, Determination on Merits
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Procedural Fairness, Protection Visa, Judicial Review, Jurisdictional Error
Administrative Law Migration Law Extension of Time Leave to Appeal Procedural Fairness Protection Visa Judicial Review Jurisdictional Error

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BPB17

First Applicant

BPC17

Second Applicant

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

First Respondent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Migration Application for Extension of Time for Leave to Appeal / Application for Extension of Time, Determination on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants have established grounds to warrant an extension of time for leave to appeal
  2. 2 Whether there was jurisdictional error by the Tribunal or Federal Circuit Court
  3. 3 Whether procedural fairness was denied by the Tribunal

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's explanation for delay was inadequate and, crucially, the proposed grounds of appeal lacked merit, being too general and unsupported by evidence, so extension of time was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused

Orders

  • The applicants' application for an extension of time dated 18 December 2017 be refused.
  • The applicants pay the first respondent's costs, as agreed or assessed.