Thayananthan v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1054

Thayananthan v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1054

The application is barred by res judicata (as well as issue and Anshun estoppel) because the applicants' present grounds were or could have been raised in prior proceedings that were finally determined; no jurisdictional error was found, and even if writs of mandamus and certiorari were out of time, a claim for prohibition would not survive as a proper remedy under the circumstances.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under S 75(v) of the Constitution / Final Judgment on Application for Constitutional Writs
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'prerogative Writs (prohibition, Mandamus, Certiorari)' 'jurisdictional Error' 'res Judicata' 'issue Estoppel' 'anshun Estoppel' 'procedural Fairness']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'constitutional Law'] ['judicial Review' 'prerogative Writs (prohibition, Mandamus, Certiorari)' 'jurisdictional Error' 'res Judicata' 'issue Estoppel' 'anshun Estoppel' '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

Judicial Review Under S 75(v) of the Constitution / Final Judgment on Application for Constitutional Writs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the application for writs of mandamus and certiorari should be dismissed as out of time even though prohibition is also sought' 'Whether res judicata, issue estoppel or Anshun estoppel bar the present proceeding' 'Whether the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error by failing to take into account relevant considerations']

Ratio Decidendi

The application is barred by res judicata (as well as issue and Anshun estoppel) because the applicants' present grounds were or could have been raised in prior proceedings that were finally determined; no jurisdictional error was found, and even if writs of mandamus and certiorari were out of time, a claim for prohibition would not survive as a proper remedy under the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' "The applicants pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the application."]