Re Ruddock & Ors; Ex parte Reyes [2000] HCA 66

Re Ruddock & Ors; Ex parte Reyes [2000] HCA 66

There is no jurisdictional or legal error to warrant the issue of orders nisi for prerogative writs; at highest only factual error is alleged. The applicant failed to show any arguable case for constitutional relief. Relief sought against the named respondents was misconceived both substantively and procedurally.

Parties
Applicant: Alicia Reyes; First Respondent: Phillip Ruddock; Second Respondent: Kim Wilson; Third Respondent: Sue Tongue
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 September 2000
Procedural Posture
Application for Constitutional Relief / Ex Tempore Judgment on Orders Nisi and Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdictional Error, Prohibition, Mandamus, Certiorari, Immigration Review Tribunal, Migration Review Tribunal
Constitutional Law Migration Law Jurisdictional Error Prohibition Mandamus Certiorari Immigration Review Tribunal Migration Review 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alicia Reyes

Applicant

Phillip Ruddock

First Respondent

Kim Wilson

Second Respondent

Sue Tongue

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Constitutional Relief / Ex Tempore Judgment on Orders Nisi and Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Immigration Review Tribunal made a jurisdictional error
  2. 2 Whether writ of prohibition should be issued against the Minister
  3. 3 Whether writ of mandamus should be issued against the principal member of the Migration Review Tribunal

Ratio Decidendi

There is no jurisdictional or legal error to warrant the issue of orders nisi for prerogative writs; at highest only factual error is alleged. The applicant failed to show any arguable case for constitutional relief. Relief sought against the named respondents was misconceived both substantively and procedurally.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • Application for orders nisi dismissed
  • Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed