S242 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1601
The application for orders nisi was refused because the grounds and affidavit contained only unparticularised assertions of procedural error and breach of natural justice and did not disclose an arguable case that the Tribunal made a jurisdictional error.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 09 November 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Orders Nisi Seeking Relief in Respect of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Under the Migration Act 1958 (cth) / Application Dealt With on the Papers After Remittal From the High Court of Australia
- Outcome
- Application for orders nisi refused.
- Legal Topics
- ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'natural Justice' 'procedural Fairness' 'orders Nisi']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application for Orders Nisi Seeking Relief in Respect of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Under the Migration Act 1958 (cth) / Application Dealt With on the Papers After Remittal From the High Court of Australia
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the material before the Court disclosed at least an arguable case for the grant of final relief in respect of the Tribunal's decision." 'Whether Order 51A rule 5(1) of the Federal Court Rules should be dispensed with.']
Ratio Decidendi
The application for orders nisi was refused because the grounds and affidavit contained only unparticularised assertions of procedural error and breach of natural justice and did not disclose an arguable case that the Tribunal made a jurisdictional error.
Court Disposition
Application for orders nisi refused.
Orders
- ['Order 51A rule 5(1) not apply to the proceeding.' 'The application for orders nisi be refused.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment