CPP17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2020] FCA 1097

CPP17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2020] FCA 1097

The application for leave to adduce further evidence is refused because the appellant failed to show, first, that the evidence could not have been put before the Federal Circuit Court with reasonable diligence, and second, that the further evidence was likely to have led to a different result before that Court. The limited nature of judicial review jurisdiction means the evidence would not have been admissible other than perhaps as to materiality, and it does not contradict the Authority's finding regarding the ongoing nature of the threat.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Adduce Further Evidence on Appeal
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'complementary Protection' 'legal Unreasonableness' 'procedural Fairness' 'adducing Further Evidence']
['administrative Law' 'migration Law'] ['judicial Review' 'complementary Protection' 'legal Unreasonableness' 'procedural Fairness' 'adducing Further Evidence']

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

Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Adduce Further Evidence on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to adduce further evidence on appeal' "Whether the Authority's decision involved legal unreasonableness" 'Whether the evidence could have been adduced before the Federal Circuit Court by the exercise of reasonable diligence' 'Whether the further evidence was likely to have led to a different result']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to adduce further evidence is refused because the appellant failed to show, first, that the evidence could not have been put before the Federal Circuit Court with reasonable diligence, and second, that the further evidence was likely to have led to a different result before that Court. The limited nature of judicial review jurisdiction means the evidence would not have been admissible other than perhaps as to materiality, and it does not contradict the Authority's finding regarding the ongoing nature of the threat.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • ['The interlocutory application for leave to adduce further evidence on the appeal is refused.' "The appellants pay the first respondent's costs of the interlocutory application for leave to adduce further evidence on the appeal."]