Hundal v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 142

Hundal v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 142

The adjournment was properly refused because the Appellant had had prior opportunities and neither the state of his health nor the absence of his overseas advocate justified further delay; none of the grounds of appeal were reasonably arguable, and the requirement for a visa—enrolment and a contemporaneous...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Ajay Pal Singh Hundal; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Border Protection; Second Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal; Application for Adjournment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; application for adjournment refused; costs ordered.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Adjournment Applications, Procedural Fairness, Student Visas
Migration Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Adjournment Applications Procedural Fairness Student Visas

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ajay Pal Singh Hundal

Appellant

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

First Respondent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal; Application for Adjournment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to grant an adjournment was in error
  2. 2 Whether the Federal Circuit Court erred in dismissing the application for judicial review
  3. 3 Whether the Appellant was denied procedural fairness

Ratio Decidendi

The adjournment was properly refused because the Appellant had had prior opportunities and neither the state of his health nor the absence of his overseas advocate justified further delay; none of the grounds of appeal were reasonably arguable, and the requirement for a visa—enrolment and a contemporaneous certificate—was indisputably unmet.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; application for adjournment refused; costs ordered.

Orders

  • The Appellant's application for an adjournment of today's hearing is refused.
  • The appeal is dismissed.