MZZWU v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 166

MZZWU v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 166

Although the delay of 11 days was short, adequately explained, and caused no asserted prejudice, the application for an extension of time and leave to appeal was dismissed because the proposed appeal had insufficient prospects of success. The applicants identified no error in the primary judge's dismissal of the second application to set aside, the primary judge applied the appropriate rule and relevant considerations, and no apparent error was shown in the earlier conclusion that the substantive judicial review application lacked merit.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Migration Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Lodge a Notice of Appeal and for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Judgment of the Federal Circuit Court
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment' 'judicial Review of Protection Visa Refusal' 'setting Aside Orders Made in Absence of a Party' 'default of Appearance' 'tribunal Procedural Fairness']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'federal Civil Procedure'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment' 'judicial Review of Protection Visa Refusal' 'setting Aside Orders Made in Absence of a Party' 'default of Appearance' 'tribunal Procedural Fairness']

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

Migration Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Lodge a Notice of Appeal and for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Judgment of the Federal Circuit Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants should be granted an extension of time to lodge a Notice of Appeal.' 'Whether leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment should be granted.' 'Whether the proposed appeal had sufficient merit or prospects of success.' 'Whether the primary judge erred in dismissing the application to set aside orders made after non-appearance.' "Whether the primary judge's earlier assessment of the substantive judicial review grounds disclosed error."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the delay of 11 days was short, adequately explained, and caused no asserted prejudice, the application for an extension of time and leave to appeal was dismissed because the proposed appeal had insufficient prospects of success. The applicants identified no error in the primary judge's dismissal of the second application to set aside, the primary judge applied the appropriate rule and relevant considerations, and no apparent error was shown in the earlier conclusion that the substantive judicial review application lacked merit.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The applicants' application for an extension of time and leave to appeal, dated 19 October 2015, be dismissed." "The applicants pay the first respondent's costs of the application."]