Bariah v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1253
The applicants received notification of the Refugee Review Tribunal's decision well before the 28 days preceding the filing of their Federal Court applications on 15 June 2000. Because the applications were filed outside the period permitted by s 478(1) and s 478(2) prevented the Court from extending that period, the applications were incompetent and had to be dismissed.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 06 September 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Applications for Judicial Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming a Delegate's Refusal to Grant Protection Visas / Hearing of the Minister's Notice of Objection to Competency
- Outcome
- Applications dismissed as incompetent; no order as to costs.
- Legal Topics
- ['protection Visas' 'judicial Review' 'time Limit for Filing Applications' 'competency of Proceedings' 'migration Agent Conduct' 'ministerial Discretion']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Applications for Judicial Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming a Delegate's Refusal to Grant Protection Visas / Hearing of the Minister's Notice of Objection to Competency
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the applications for judicial review were lodged within 28 days of the applicants being notified of the Refugee Review Tribunal's decision under s 478(1)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)." 'Whether the Court had power to permit the applications to proceed despite being filed outside the statutory period.' "Whether the Court could review a decision not to consider the exercise of the Minister's discretion under s 417(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)."]
Ratio Decidendi
The applicants received notification of the Refugee Review Tribunal's decision well before the 28 days preceding the filing of their Federal Court applications on 15 June 2000. Because the applications were filed outside the period permitted by s 478(1) and s 478(2) prevented the Court from extending that period, the applications were incompetent and had to be dismissed.
Court Disposition
Applications dismissed as incompetent; no order as to costs.
Orders
- ['The applications in proceedings N 627 of 2000 and N 628 of 2000 be dismissed as incompetent.' 'No order as to costs.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment