AAQ15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 963

AAQ15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 963

There was no merit in the appeal as no legal or jurisdictional error could be identified in the Tribunal's or primary judge's decision. The absence of a substantive ground of review or appeal and clear advice from multiple legal professionals confirming the lack of prospects meant that extension of time and leave to appeal should be refused. Applicant had sufficient opportunity for legal assistance; refusal of adjournment was not in error. Granting extension or leave would be futile.

Parties
Applicant: AAQ15; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Border Protection; Second Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Judgment on Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for extension of time and leave to appeal dismissed with fixed costs order against applicant.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Costs, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review, Refugee Law
Practice and Procedure Immigration Law Administrative Law Extension of Time Leave to Appeal Costs Procedural Fairness Judicial Review +1 more

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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AAQ15

Applicant

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

First Respondent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Judgment on Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extension of time to file appeal should be granted
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted
  3. 3 Whether primary judge erred in refusing adjournment and/or denying procedural fairness

Ratio Decidendi

There was no merit in the appeal as no legal or jurisdictional error could be identified in the Tribunal's or primary judge's decision. The absence of a substantive ground of review or appeal and clear advice from multiple legal professionals confirming the lack of prospects meant that extension of time and leave to appeal should be refused. Applicant had sufficient opportunity for legal assistance; refusal of adjournment was not in error. Granting extension or leave would be futile.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time and leave to appeal dismissed with fixed costs order against applicant.

Orders

  • The application for an extension of time and leave to appeal be dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $5,000, pursuant to s 43(3)(d) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).