Pasini v Boland [1999] FCA 188

Pasini v Boland [1999] FCA 188

The RRT did not breach the rules of natural justice in how it conducted the review up to the date challenged; it was not required to adjourn pending extradition proceedings, to provide all material in its possession to the applicants, nor to stipulate in advance the complete procedural steps of the review. The Federal Court had jurisdiction to review RRT conduct prior to a decision, but the applicants failed to establish any breach of natural justice or reviewable error.

Parties
First Applicant: Marco Pasini; Second Applicant: Teresa Pasini Cabal; Third Applicant: Carlos Cabal Peniche; First Respondent: Kerry Boland (in her capacity as a member of the Refugee Review Tribunal under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)); Second Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 March 1999
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Application for Prohibition Orders Prior to RRT Decision
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Jurisdiction of the Federal Court, Refugee Status Determination
Migration Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Procedural Fairness Jurisdiction of the Federal Court Refugee Status Determination

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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marco Pasini

First Applicant

Teresa Pasini Cabal

Second Applicant

Carlos Cabal Peniche

Third Applicant

Kerry Boland (in her capacity as a member of the Refugee Review Tribunal under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth))

First Respondent

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Application for Prohibition Orders Prior to RRT Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Federal Court has jurisdiction to review conduct of the RRT prior to decision being made
  2. 2 Whether the RRT's refusal to adjourn is reviewable as a decision or conduct
  3. 3 Whether the applicants were denied procedural fairness or natural justice by the RRT procedures adopted

Ratio Decidendi

The RRT did not breach the rules of natural justice in how it conducted the review up to the date challenged; it was not required to adjourn pending extradition proceedings, to provide all material in its possession to the applicants, nor to stipulate in advance the complete procedural steps of the review. The Federal Court had jurisdiction to review RRT conduct prior to a decision, but the applicants failed to establish any breach of natural justice or reviewable error.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application be dismissed.
  • The applicants pay the second respondent's costs of and incidental to the application.