AID15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 1257

AID15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 1257

Because the self-represented appellant's notice of appeal was unclear, it was appropriate to treat it as both an application for extension of time to appeal and an application for extension of time to apply for leave to appeal; however, the appellant filed no submissions and did not appear at the hearing after notice had been given, so the application was dismissed under r 35.33(1)(a)(i) and costs were ordered for the Minister.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal and Application for Extension of Time to Apply for Leave to Appeal in a Migration Matter / Federal Court Hearing of Notice of Appeal Treated as Extension of Time Applications
Outcome
The application was dismissed under r 35.33(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), with costs to the first respondent.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders' 'objection to Competency' 'non Appearance' 'protection (class Xa) Visa']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders' 'objection to Competency' 'non Appearance' 'protection (class Xa) Visa']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to Appeal and Application for Extension of Time to Apply for Leave to Appeal in a Migration Matter / Federal Court Hearing of Notice of Appeal Treated as Extension of Time Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the notice of appeal should be treated as an application for extension of time to appeal and an application for extension of time to apply for leave to appeal.' 'Whether the Court had jurisdiction or the appeal was competent where no orders were made on the date identified in the notice of appeal.' "Whether the application should be dismissed due to the appellant's non-appearance."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the self-represented appellant's notice of appeal was unclear, it was appropriate to treat it as both an application for extension of time to appeal and an application for extension of time to apply for leave to appeal; however, the appellant filed no submissions and did not appear at the hearing after notice had been given, so the application was dismissed under r 35.33(1)(a)(i) and costs were ordered for the Minister.

Court Disposition

The application was dismissed under r 35.33(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), with costs to the first respondent.

Orders

  • ["The appellant's notice of appeal filed on 12 August 2015 be treated as an application for extension of time to appeal and an application for extension of time to apply for leave to appeal." 'The application be dismissed under r 35.33(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).' "The appellant pay the first...