Applicant A55/2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 824

Applicant A55/2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 824

Each amended application relied on Muin grounds but was unsupported by affidavit evidence as required, and the applicants did not take up liberty to file affidavit material to lay the required factual foundation. Because there was a complete absence of evidence supporting the applications, each Minister's motion was allowed and the amended 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 the Amended Applications
Outcome
The applications were struck out and consideration of costs was adjourned to a date to be fixed.
Legal Topics
['protection Visas' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'judicial Review' 'procedural Fairness' 'jurisdictional Error' 'strike Out' 'costs']
['administrative Law' 'migration Law'] ['protection Visas' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'judicial Review' 'procedural Fairness' 'jurisdictional Error' 'strike Out' 'costs']

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 the Amended Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the amended applications disclosed a reasonable cause of action founded on Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal (2002) 190 ALR 601.' 'Whether each applicant established the factual substratum necessary for a Muin procedural fairness challenge.' 'Whether the absence of affidavit evidence supporting the amended applications required the applications to be struck out.']

Ratio Decidendi

Each amended application relied on Muin grounds but was unsupported by affidavit evidence as required, and the applicants did not take up liberty to file affidavit material to lay the required factual foundation. Because there was a complete absence of evidence supporting the applications, each Minister's motion was allowed and the amended applications were struck out.

Court Disposition

The applications were struck out and 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.']