Minister for Home Affairs v SZRWS [2018] FCAFC 51

Leave to appeal was refused as there was no persuasive evidence of substantial injustice arising from the interlocutory injunction, and the factual and legal issues would not be finally determined by any appeal, making resolution in a single forum and time preferable.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 06 April 2018
Procedural Posture: Application for Leave to Appeal / Interlocutory Decision
Outcome: Leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics: ['judicial Review' 'jurisdiction' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'duty of Care' 'migration Decisions']

['administrative Law' 'constitutional Law' 'human Rights' 'tort Law'] ['judicial Review' 'jurisdiction' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'duty of Care' 'migration Decisions']

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

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Interlocutory Decision

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether the Federal Circuit Court had jurisdiction to hear an action in negligence under s 476(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).' 'Whether an interlocutory injunction was properly granted on the basis of a serious question to be tried in negligence.' 'Whether substantial injustice would result from refusing leave to appeal.' 'Whether s 476(1) limits the Federal Circuit Court jurisdiction to judicial review applications only.']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused

Orders

['The first respondent have leave to withdraw his application for leave to cross-appeal.' "The first respondent pay the second respondent's costs of his application for leave to cross-appeal, as agreed or taxed." 'Grant leave to the first respondent to file and rely on his proposed notice of contention, filed on 3...