A52 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 184

Leave to appeal should not be granted because no error or sufficient doubt was disclosed in Emmett J's judgment, and the material provided did not demonstrate an arguable case for relief.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 13 February 2006
Procedural Posture: Application for Leave to Appeal / Judgment on Leave to Appeal
Outcome: application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics: ['judicial Review' 'protection Visa' 'leave to Appeal' 'jurisdictional Error']

['administrative Law' 'immigration Law'] ['judicial Review' 'protection Visa' 'leave to Appeal' 'jurisdictional Error']

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

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Judgment on Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the judgment refusing constitutional writ relief against the Refugee Review Tribunal decision' "Whether the Tribunal's decision involved jurisdictional error" 'Whether the application for leave to appeal was attended with sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal should not be granted because no error or sufficient doubt was disclosed in Emmett J's judgment, and the material provided did not demonstrate an arguable case for relief.

Court Disposition

application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

['The Refugee Review Tribunal be added as a Second Respondent.' "The time for filing the Applicant's application for leave to appeal be extended up to and including 29 November 2005." 'The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.' "The Applicant pay the First Respondent's costs fixed in the agreed sum of $950."]