Manna v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2013] FCA 400

Manna v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2013] FCA 400

The application for extension of time was refused because the 329-day delay was very substantial and the applicants' explanations, namely pursuing ministerial intervention and lack of legal representation, were not acceptable. In any event, the proposed appeal had no merit: it identified no error by the Federal Magistrate, sought in substance merits review of the Tribunal's decision, did not establish unfairness or unreasonableness, and the allegation of bad faith was unsupported.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to File a Notice of Appeal / Application Dismissed
Outcome
The application for extension of time is dismissed, with costs to the first respondent.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'notice of Appeal' 'ministerial Intervention' 'self Represented Litigants' 'judicial Review of Migration Review Tribunal Decision' 'ielts and Visa Criteria']
['practice and Procedure' 'migration Law'] ['extension of Time' 'notice of Appeal' 'ministerial Intervention' 'self Represented Litigants' 'judicial Review of Migration Review Tribunal Decision' 'ielts and Visa Criteria']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to File a Notice of Appeal / Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants should be granted an extension of time under r 36.05 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) to file a notice of appeal from the Federal Magistrates Court judgment delivered on 20 January 2012.' "Whether the applicants' application for ministerial intervention and lack of legal advice provided an acceptable explanation for the delay." 'Whether the proposed appeal had sufficient merit, including allegations that the Tribunal acted unfairly, unreasonably or in bad faith in refusing further time to sit an IELTS test.' 'Whether reliance on grounds substantially different from those raised below should be permitted on appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time was refused because the 329-day delay was very substantial and the applicants' explanations, namely pursuing ministerial intervention and lack of legal representation, were not acceptable. In any event, the proposed appeal had no merit: it identified no error by the Federal Magistrate, sought in substance merits review of the Tribunal's decision, did not establish unfairness or unreasonableness, and the allegation of bad faith was unsupported.

Court Disposition

The application for extension of time is dismissed, with costs to the first respondent.

Orders

  • ['The application for extension of time is dismissed.' "The applicants are to pay the first respondent's costs."]