S231/2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 269

S231/2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 269

Leave to appeal was refused because the material advanced by the applicant disclosed no basis on which the Court could interfere with the Tribunal's decision, no error was shown in Sackville J's approach or reasons, Sackville J's decision was not attended with sufficient doubt to warrant leave, and the applicant had not shown that refusal of leave would cause substantial injustice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Migration Law Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Decision Refusing to Issue an Order Nisi
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused; applicant ordered to pay the first respondent's costs assessed at $700.00.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'leave to Appeal' 'order Nisi' 'costs']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' '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

Migration Law Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Decision Refusing to Issue an Order Nisi

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave should be granted to appeal from Sackville J's decision refusing to issue an order nisi." "Whether the proposed appeal identified any basis for the Court to interfere with the Refugee Review Tribunal's decision rather than seeking merits review." "Whether the applicant should be ordered to pay the Minister's costs despite his asserted indigence."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the material advanced by the applicant disclosed no basis on which the Court could interfere with the Tribunal's decision, no error was shown in Sackville J's approach or reasons, Sackville J's decision was not attended with sufficient doubt to warrant leave, and the applicant had not shown that refusal of leave would cause substantial injustice.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused; applicant ordered to pay the first respondent's costs assessed at $700.00.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal be refused.' "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs assessed in the sum of $700.00."]