Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 983

Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 983

Because the appellants were absent when the appeal was called on for hearing, had not filed written submissions, had not responded to Court or Ministerial communications, and the first appellant appeared to have departed Australia with no present right of re-entry, it was appropriate to proceed in their absence and dismiss the appeal under r 36.75(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Dismissing an Application for Judicial Review / Hearing of Appeal; Appellants Did Not Appear
Outcome
Appeal dismissed under r 36.75 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).
Legal Topics
['non Appearance by Appellants' 'dismissal of Appeal Under R 36.75(1) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth)' 'skilled (graduate) (temporary) (class Vc) Subclass 485 Visa' 'public Interest Criterion 4020']
['migration' 'administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights'] ['non Appearance by Appellants' 'dismissal of Appeal Under R 36.75(1) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth)' 'skilled (graduate) (temporary) (class Vc) Subclass 485 Visa' 'public Interest Criterion 4020']

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 Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Dismissing an Application for Judicial Review / Hearing of Appeal; Appellants Did Not Appear

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appeal should be dismissed under r 36.75(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) because the appellants were absent when the appeal was called on for hearing.' "Whether it was appropriate to proceed in the appellants' absence in circumstances where they had not filed submissions, had not responded to communications, and the first appellant had departed Australia."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the appellants were absent when the appeal was called on for hearing, had not filed written submissions, had not responded to Court or Ministerial communications, and the first appellant appeared to have departed Australia with no present right of re-entry, it was appropriate to proceed in their absence and dismiss the appeal under r 36.75(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed under r 36.75 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed under r 36.75 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).' "The appellants pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal, fixed in the sum of $2,178."]