Applicant S 203 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2005] FCA 1813

Applicant S 203 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2005] FCA 1813

Although the unopposed extension of time was granted, the draft notice of appeal, the matters agitated before the Tribunal, and the applicant's supporting affidavit did not disclose any arguable jurisdictional error or any ground on which an appeal might succeed. Branson J's decision was not attended with sufficient doubt to warrant leave, and refusing leave would not cause substantial injustice given the applicant had already had two opportunities to agitate his case before the Tribunal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Application for an Extension of Time in Which to Apply for Leave to Appeal and Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal From Dismissal of an Application for an Order Nisi
Outcome
Extension of time granted; application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs fixed at $800.
Legal Topics
['refugee Review Tribunal' 'jurisdictional Error' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'order Nisi' 'costs']
['administrative Law' 'migration Law' 'refugee Law'] ['refugee Review Tribunal' 'jurisdictional Error' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' '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 an Extension of Time in Which to Apply for Leave to Appeal and Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal From Dismissal of an Application for an Order Nisi

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an extension of time in which to apply for leave to appeal should be granted.' 'Whether the draft notice of appeal disclosed any ground on which an appeal might be successful.' "Whether the Tribunal's decision was arguably affected by jurisdictional error." 'Whether refusal of leave would occasion substantial injustice to the applicant.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the unopposed extension of time was granted, the draft notice of appeal, the matters agitated before the Tribunal, and the applicant's supporting affidavit did not disclose any arguable jurisdictional error or any ground on which an appeal might succeed. Branson J's decision was not attended with sufficient doubt to warrant leave, and refusing leave would not cause substantial injustice given the applicant had already had two opportunities to agitate his case before the Tribunal.

Court Disposition

Extension of time granted; application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs fixed at $800.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time in which to apply for leave to appeal be granted.' 'The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.' "The applicant pay second respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $800."]