Applicant NATC of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1614

Applicant NATC of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1614

There is no basis for re-agitating the applicant’s claims as all relevant issues have been previously litigated and determined up to an application for special leave to the High Court; the applicant failed to demonstrate jurisdictional error or grounds for an order nisi; and the application for constitutional writs is dismissed with costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Application for Constitutional Writs (remitted From High Court) / Final Determination With Orders
Outcome
Application for writs dismissed. Application for adjournment refused. Costs ordered against applicant.
Legal Topics
['jurisdictional Error' 'refugee Status Determination' 'privative Clause Decision' 'judicial Review' 'application for Order Nisi' 'costs']
['administrative Law' 'immigration Law' 'constitutional Law'] ['jurisdictional Error' 'refugee Status Determination' 'privative Clause Decision' 'judicial Review' 'application for Order Nisi' '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

Application for Constitutional Writs (remitted From High Court) / Final Determination With Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether any jurisdictional error has been demonstrated by the Refugee Review Tribunal's decision" 'Whether there are grounds to make an order nisi for constitutional writs under s 75(v) of the Constitution' 'Whether the application is competent given prior litigation']

Ratio Decidendi

There is no basis for re-agitating the applicant’s claims as all relevant issues have been previously litigated and determined up to an application for special leave to the High Court; the applicant failed to demonstrate jurisdictional error or grounds for an order nisi; and the application for constitutional writs is dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for writs dismissed. Application for adjournment refused. Costs ordered against applicant.

Orders

  • ['The application for an adjournment is refused.' 'The application for the order nisi in relation to constitutional writs be refused/dismissed.' "The applicant pay the named first, second and third respondents' costs."]