Applicant A202 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 732

Applicant A202 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 732

The extension of time was refused because the delay was lengthy and inadequately explained, including no explanation for the period of more than eight months after the applicant learnt that the Minister would not exercise the s 417 power, and because the applicant had no real prospect of establishing denial of procedural fairness: the Tribunal's reasons recorded that it wrote to the applicant inviting him to attend a hearing and give evidence, and no material showed that record to be erroneous.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Migration Judicial Review / Notice of Motion Seeking an Extension of Time
Outcome
Application by notice of motion for an extension of time refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'procedural Fairness' 'protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'certiorari' 'ministerial Intervention Under S 417']
['administrative Law' 'migration Law' 'refugee Law'] ['extension of Time' 'procedural Fairness' 'protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'certiorari' 'ministerial Intervention Under S 417']

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

Migration Judicial Review / Notice of Motion Seeking an Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an extension of time should be granted to institute proceedings challenging the Refugee Review Tribunal decision.' 'Whether the applicant had an arguable case that the Refugee Review Tribunal denied procedural fairness by failing to give him an opportunity to be heard.']

Ratio Decidendi

The extension of time was refused because the delay was lengthy and inadequately explained, including no explanation for the period of more than eight months after the applicant learnt that the Minister would not exercise the s 417 power, and because the applicant had no real prospect of establishing denial of procedural fairness: the Tribunal's reasons recorded that it wrote to the applicant inviting him to attend a hearing and give evidence, and no material showed that record to be erroneous.

Court Disposition

Application by notice of motion for an extension of time refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Application by notice of motion for an extension of time is refused.' 'Application is dismissed.' "Applicant to pay the first respondent's costs fixed at $1250, including disbursements." 'No order for costs of second or third respondents.']