Applicants A216 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 753

Applicants A216 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 753

Although the prior judicial review proceedings and prompt High Court application provided an acceptable explanation for delay, the applicants showed no prospect of establishing the alleged procedural fairness ground. The country information quoted by the Tribunal predated the hearing, the relevant issue concerning the applicant husband's political affiliations and treatment in Albania was alive and discussed at the hearing, there was no evidence that the Tribunal relied on adverse material obtained after the hearing, and there was no evidence that the applicants were unaware of or denied an opportunity to comment on the material relied upon. The extension of time was therefore refused and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion Seeking an Extension of Time Within Which to Apply for Relief in the Nature of a Writ of Certiorari to Quash a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of Protection Visas / Application Remitted by the High Court of Australia and Heard in the Federal Court; Extension of Time Application
Outcome
Application by notice of motion for an extension of time refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['protection Visas' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'extension of Time' 'certiorari' 'procedural Fairness' 'jurisdictional Error' 'independent Country Information' 'migration Act 1958 (cth) S 417']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visas' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'extension of Time' 'certiorari' 'procedural Fairness' 'jurisdictional Error' 'independent Country Information' 'migration Act 1958 (cth) S 417']

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

Notice of Motion Seeking an Extension of Time Within Which to Apply for Relief in the Nature of a Writ of Certiorari to Quash a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of Protection Visas / Application Remitted by the High Court of Australia and Heard in the Federal Court; Extension of Time Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time should be extended for the applicants to seek certiorari to quash the Refugee Review Tribunal decision.' 'Whether the applicants had an adequate explanation for the delay in commencing the High Court proceedings.' "Whether the proposed application had any prospects of success based on an alleged denial of procedural fairness by the Tribunal's reliance on adverse country information without giving the applicants an opportunity to comment."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the prior judicial review proceedings and prompt High Court application provided an acceptable explanation for delay, the applicants showed no prospect of establishing the alleged procedural fairness ground. The country information quoted by the Tribunal predated the hearing, the relevant issue concerning the applicant husband's political affiliations and treatment in Albania was alive and discussed at the hearing, there was no evidence that the Tribunal relied on adverse material obtained after the hearing, and there was no evidence that the applicants were unaware of or denied an opportunity to comment on the material relied upon. The extension of time was therefore refused and...

Court Disposition

Application by notice of motion for an extension of time refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Application by notice of motion for an extension of time is refused.' 'Application is dismissed.' "Applicant to pay the first respondent's costs fixed at $1250, including disbursements." 'No order for costs of the second and third respondents.']