Applicant A99/2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 694

Applicant A99/2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 694

The amended applications were not supported by affidavits or any other evidence, and the applicants did not take up the Court's liberty to file affidavit material to lay a factual foundation for their Muin allegations. Because there was a complete absence of evidence establishing the factual substratum required for those procedural fairness claims, each Minister's motion was allowed and each amended application was struck out.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Migration; Judicial Review of Refugee Review Tribunal Decisions Affirming Decisions Not to Grant Protection Visas / Respondent Minister's Motions to Strike Out Amended Applications as Disclosing No Reasonable Cause of Action
Outcome
Each application was struck out; consideration of costs was adjourned to a date to be fixed.
Legal Topics
['refugee Review Tribunal' 'protection Visa' 'judicial Review' 'procedural Fairness' 'natural Justice' 'jurisdictional Error' 'muin Challenge' 'strike Out' 'no Factual Substratum']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['refugee Review Tribunal' 'protection Visa' 'judicial Review' 'procedural Fairness' 'natural Justice' 'jurisdictional Error' 'muin Challenge' 'strike Out' 'no Factual Substratum']

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 of Refugee Review Tribunal Decisions Affirming Decisions Not to Grant Protection Visas / Respondent Minister's Motions to Strike Out Amended Applications as Disclosing No Reasonable Cause of Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants established a factual substratum for Muin-based procedural fairness challenges concerning Part B documents and adverse material allegedly used without notice or opportunity to respond.' 'Whether the amended applications should be struck out where no supporting affidavit or other evidence was filed despite liberty to file affidavit material.']

Ratio Decidendi

The amended applications were not supported by affidavits or any other evidence, and the applicants did not take up the Court's liberty to file affidavit material to lay a factual foundation for their Muin allegations. Because there was a complete absence of evidence establishing the factual substratum required for those procedural fairness claims, each Minister's motion was allowed and each amended application was struck out.

Court Disposition

Each application was struck out; consideration of costs was adjourned to a date to be fixed.

Orders

  • ['The application be struck out.' 'The consideration of costs be adjourned to a date to be fixed.']