EER17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2019] FCA 1949

EER17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2019] FCA 1949

The appeal was dismissed because the grounds were unparticularised to the point of being meaningless, no error by the Federal Circuit Court or Tribunal was established, the application for a subpoena amounted to an irrelevant fishing exercise, and the primary judge’s exercise of discretion in not admitting late evidence was open in the circumstances.

Parties
First Appellant: EER17; Second Appellant: EES17; Third Appellant: EEW17; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs; Second Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Protection Visas, Judicial Review, Particularisation of Grounds, Subpoena and Adjournment Applications, Tribunal Procedure
Administrative Law Migration Law Practice and Procedure Protection Visas Judicial Review Particularisation of Grounds Subpoena and Adjournment Applications Tribunal Procedure

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EER17

First Appellant

EES17

Second Appellant

EEW17

Third Appellant

Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

First Respondent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Federal Circuit Court judge erred by not admitting transcripts of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal hearing
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent contributed to error by failure to supply an audio file or transcript
  3. 3 Whether the Federal Circuit Court judge erred by dismissing for want of particularisation of grounds

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the grounds were unparticularised to the point of being meaningless, no error by the Federal Circuit Court or Tribunal was established, the application for a subpoena amounted to an irrelevant fishing exercise, and the primary judge’s exercise of discretion in not admitting late evidence was open in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The name of the First Respondent amended to 'Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs'.
  • Application for leave to issue a subpoena refused.