Applicants A206 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 733

Applicants A206 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 733

The extension of time was refused because, even assuming the delay would not be weighed against the applicants, they had no prospect of establishing the asserted procedural fairness denial. The independent country information relied on by the Tribunal was identified, pre-dated the hearing, and there was no evidence that it was not raised with the applicant husband or that the applicants lacked an opportunity to address it.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Migration Judicial Review Application Concerning Protection Visas / Notice of Motion Seeking an Extension of Time to Apply to the High Court for Certiorari to Quash a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Application by notice of motion for an extension of time refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['protection Visas' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'extension of Time' 'procedural Fairness' 'jurisdictional Error' 'independent Country Information']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visas' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'extension of Time' 'procedural Fairness' 'jurisdictional Error' 'independent Country Information']

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 Judicial Review Application Concerning Protection Visas / Notice of Motion Seeking an Extension of Time to Apply to the High Court for Certiorari to Quash a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time should be extended under O 60, r 6 of the High Court Rules to institute proceedings.' 'Whether the applicants had any prospect of establishing jurisdictional error based on denial of procedural fairness.' 'Whether the Tribunal relied on adverse independent country information without notifying the applicants or giving them an opportunity to address it.']

Ratio Decidendi

The extension of time was refused because, even assuming the delay would not be weighed against the applicants, they had no prospect of establishing the asserted procedural fairness denial. The independent country information relied on by the Tribunal was identified, pre-dated the hearing, and there was no evidence that it was not raised with the applicant husband or that the applicants lacked an opportunity to address it.

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.']