AJQ15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1640

AJQ15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1640

The application for an extension of time was dismissed because the applicant had not explained his delay, had not provided a draft notice of appeal, and his proposed case was hopeless: there was no basis to consider that an appeal would have any prospect of success or that any substantial injustice would result from refusing leave.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for an Extension of Time / Application for an Extension of Time to Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court's Refusal of Constitutional Writ Relief
Outcome
Application for an extension of time dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'complementary Protection' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'extension of Time' 'data Breach' 'administrative Appeals Tribunal']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'constitutional Law and Human Rights'] ['protection Visa' 'complementary Protection' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'extension of Time' 'data Breach' 'administrative Appeals Tribunal']

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

Application for an Extension of Time / Application for an Extension of Time to Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court's Refusal of Constitutional Writ Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time in respect of the Federal Circuit Court decision refusing Constitutional writ relief.' 'Whether the proposed appeal had any prospect of success or whether substantial injustice would result from refusing leave.' "Whether the Tribunal erred in relation to the applicant's claims arising from the Department's data breach and other protection claims."]

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an extension of time was dismissed because the applicant had not explained his delay, had not provided a draft notice of appeal, and his proposed case was hopeless: there was no basis to consider that an appeal would have any prospect of success or that any substantial injustice would result from refusing leave.

Court Disposition

Application for an extension of time dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time dated 4 August 2017 be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs."]