Applicant A78/2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 692

Applicant A78/2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 692

Because none of the applicants filed affidavit evidence or otherwise put on evidence to establish the factual substratum necessary for their Muin procedural fairness allegations, despite being given liberty to do so, there was a complete absence of evidence supporting the amended applications. The Minister's motions were therefore allowed and each amended application was struck out.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Migration Judicial Review of Refugee Review Tribunal Decisions Affirming Decisions Not to Grant Protection Visas / Minister's Motions to Strike Out Amended Applications as Disclosing No Reasonable Cause of Action
Outcome
All seven applications were struck out; consideration of costs was adjourned to a date to be fixed.
Legal Topics
['refugee Applications' 'protection Visas' 'procedural Fairness' 'natural Justice' 'jurisdictional Error' 'muin Challenges' 'part B Documents' 'strike Out' 'factual Substratum' 'supporting Affidavit']
['migration' 'administrative Law' 'judicial Review'] ['refugee Applications' 'protection Visas' 'procedural Fairness' 'natural Justice' 'jurisdictional Error' 'muin Challenges' 'part B Documents' 'strike Out' 'factual Substratum' 'supporting Affidavit']

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

Migration Judicial Review of Refugee Review Tribunal Decisions Affirming Decisions Not to Grant Protection Visas / Minister's Motions to Strike Out Amended Applications as Disclosing No Reasonable Cause of Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the amended applications alleging Muin procedural fairness grounds had an evidentiary factual substratum in each individual case.' 'Whether the applications should be struck out where no supporting affidavit was filed and no evidence was put on despite liberty to file affidavit material.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because none of the applicants filed affidavit evidence or otherwise put on evidence to establish the factual substratum necessary for their Muin procedural fairness allegations, despite being given liberty to do so, there was a complete absence of evidence supporting the amended applications. The Minister's motions were therefore allowed and each amended application was struck out.

Court Disposition

All seven applications were struck out; consideration of costs was adjourned to a date to be fixed.

Orders

  • ['The application be struck out.' 'The consideration of costs be adjourned to a date to be fixed.']