AEL15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1295

AEL15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1295

The extension of time was refused because the applicant was 596 days out of time, gave no adequate explanation for that inordinate delay, the absence of prejudice to the Minister was insufficient and an extension would be inconsistent with expeditious finality in public administration, and the proposed grounds of appeal lacked merit. The application to join the applicant's son failed because there was no evidence of dependency and the applicant's explanation showed his son was not a dependent child. Costs were ordered because no reason was shown why the applicant should not pay the first respondent's costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Migration Application to Extend Time in Which to Appeal / Application in the Federal Court for an Extension of Time to File a Notice of Appeal From a Federal Circuit Court Decision
Outcome
Application dismissed; application to join the applicant's son failed; applicant ordered to pay the first respondent's fixed costs.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'protection Visa Refusal' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'joinder of Party' 'costs']
['migration' 'administrative Law'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'protection Visa Refusal' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'joinder of Party' 'costs']

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 Application to Extend Time in Which to Appeal / Application in the Federal Court for an Extension of Time to File a Notice of Appeal From a Federal Circuit Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal from the Federal Circuit Court decision.' 'Whether the proposed appeal had sufficient merit to justify an extension of time.' "Whether the applicant's son could be joined as a party to the appeal." "Whether the applicant should pay the first respondent's costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

The extension of time was refused because the applicant was 596 days out of time, gave no adequate explanation for that inordinate delay, the absence of prejudice to the Minister was insufficient and an extension would be inconsistent with expeditious finality in public administration, and the proposed grounds of appeal lacked merit. The application to join the applicant's son failed because there was no evidence of dependency and the applicant's explanation showed his son was not a dependent child. Costs were ordered because no reason was shown why the applicant should not pay the first respondent's costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; application to join the applicant's son failed; applicant ordered to pay the first respondent's fixed costs.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.' "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the application fixed in the sum of $1,756."]