ABAR15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 363

ABAR15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 363

Interim injunction delaying removal was granted because balance of convenience overwhelmingly favoured applicant; there was at least a barely arguable serious question to be tried on appeal, and short notice of removal prejudiced the applicant’s ability to prepare; additionally, interim relief was justified in the interests of the administration of justice to prevent frustration of the Court’s processes.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Injunction Pending Appeal
Outcome
Interim injunction granted restraining removal until 28 April 2016; procedural orders for further material and submissions; application for interlocutory injunction adjourned for argument.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunctions' 'jurisdictional Error' 'protection Visas' 'removal of Non Citizens' 'balance of Convenience']
['administrative Law' 'migration Law' 'human Rights'] ['interlocutory Injunctions' 'jurisdictional Error' 'protection Visas' 'removal of Non Citizens' 'balance of Convenience']

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

Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Injunction Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether interim injunction restraining removal pending appeal should be granted' 'Whether balance of convenience favours granting injunction' "Whether there is a serious question to be tried regarding Tribunal's decision" 'Legal competence of the Federal Court to grant interlocutory relief against removal under s 198(6) of the Migration Act']

Ratio Decidendi

Interim injunction delaying removal was granted because balance of convenience overwhelmingly favoured applicant; there was at least a barely arguable serious question to be tried on appeal, and short notice of removal prejudiced the applicant’s ability to prepare; additionally, interim relief was justified in the interests of the administration of justice to prevent frustration of the Court’s processes.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted restraining removal until 28 April 2016; procedural orders for further material and submissions; application for interlocutory injunction adjourned for argument.

Orders

  • ['Appellant to file and serve amended notice of appeal by 13 April 2016.' 'First respondent restrained from removing applicant until 5:00pm on 28 April 2016.' 'Interlocutory injunction application listed for argument on 28 April 2016 at 10:15am.' 'Appellant to file supporting material by 18 April 2016.' 'Respondent...