Applicant A161/2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 826

Applicant A161/2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 826

Each amended application relied on Muin grounds but was unsupported by affidavit evidence despite the requirements of O 4 r 6 of the Federal Court Rules and despite liberty being given to file affidavit material. Because there was a complete absence of evidence establishing the factual substratum necessary for the alleged procedural unfairness, the Minister's motions were allowed and the applications were struck out.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Refugee Review Tribunal Decisions Affirming Decisions Not to Grant Protection Visas / Respondent Minister's Notices of Motion to Strike Out Amended Applications
Outcome
Applications struck out; consideration of costs adjourned to a date to be fixed.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'procedural Fairness' 'natural Justice' 'jurisdictional Error' 'protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'strike Out Application']
['administrative Law' 'migration Law'] ['judicial Review' 'procedural Fairness' 'natural Justice' 'jurisdictional Error' 'protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'strike Out Application']

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

Judicial Review of Refugee Review Tribunal Decisions Affirming Decisions Not to Grant Protection Visas / Respondent Minister's Notices of Motion to Strike Out Amended Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether each applicant established the factual substratum necessary to maintain a Muin procedural fairness challenge to the Refugee Review Tribunal decisions.' 'Whether the amended applications should be struck out for want of evidence supporting the allegations made.' "Whether consideration of costs, including the Minister's application for costs against each applicant's legal adviser, should be adjourned."]

Ratio Decidendi

Each amended application relied on Muin grounds but was unsupported by affidavit evidence despite the requirements of O 4 r 6 of the Federal Court Rules and despite liberty being given to file affidavit material. Because there was a complete absence of evidence establishing the factual substratum necessary for the alleged procedural unfairness, the Minister's motions were allowed and the applications were struck out.

Court Disposition

Applications struck out; consideration of costs 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.']