SZLIH v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 108

SZLIH v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 108

The Notice of Motion was dismissed because the applicants' explanation for non-attendance was unconvincing and without merit, and in any event the proposed extension of time application would not have succeeded: the applicants did not show special reasons, their proposed grounds were unparticularised, no arguable jurisdictional error was identified, and the refugee claim was business-related rather than based on a Convention-related reason.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Migration Judicial Review / Extension of Time to Appeal / Notice of Motion Filed on 29 January 2009 Seeking to Vacate Orders Made on 21 November 2008 Dismissing for Want of Appearance an Application for Extension of Time to File and Serve a Notice of Appeal
Outcome
Notice of Motion dismissed; Applicants ordered to pay the costs of the First Respondent.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa Refusal' 'refugee Review Tribunal Decision' 'jurisdictional Error' 'procedural Fairness' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'setting Aside Orders Made in Absence' 'interlocutory Appeal Leave']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['protection Visa Refusal' 'refugee Review Tribunal Decision' 'jurisdictional Error' 'procedural Fairness' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'setting Aside Orders Made in Absence' 'interlocutory Appeal Leave']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Migration Judicial Review / Extension of Time to Appeal / Notice of Motion Filed on 29 January 2009 Seeking to Vacate Orders Made on 21 November 2008 Dismissing for Want of Appearance an Application for Extension of Time to File and Serve a Notice of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court had power to vary or set aside the entered orders made on 21 November 2008 in the applicants' absence." 'Whether the applicants provided a convincing and meritorious explanation for failing to attend the hearing on 21 November 2008.' 'Whether the application for an extension of time to file and serve a Notice of Appeal would have had sufficient prospects of success or special reasons warranting leave.' 'Whether the proposed appeal identified any arguable jurisdictional error in the Federal Magistrates Court or Tribunal decisions.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Notice of Motion was dismissed because the applicants' explanation for non-attendance was unconvincing and without merit, and in any event the proposed extension of time application would not have succeeded: the applicants did not show special reasons, their proposed grounds were unparticularised, no arguable jurisdictional error was identified, and the refugee claim was business-related rather than based on a Convention-related reason.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion dismissed; Applicants ordered to pay the costs of the First Respondent.

Orders

  • ['The Notice of Motion filed on 29 January 2009 be dismissed.' 'The Applicants pay the costs of the First Respondent.']