Applicant S246 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1690
The applicant was provided procedural fairness as he was given opportunity to explain discrepancies and comment on adverse material by the Refugee Review Tribunal, and there was no arguable basis for a claim to the contrary.
- Parties
- Applicant: Applicant S246/2003; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Second Respondent: Principal Member of the Refugee Review Tribunal; Third Respondent: Member of the Refugee Review Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 23 November 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- application refused
- Legal Topics
- Procedural Fairness, Refugee Protection, Protection Visa, Judicial Review
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Applicant S246/2003
Applicant
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs
First Respondent
Principal Member of the Refugee Review Tribunal
Second Respondent
Member of the Refugee Review Tribunal
Third Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant was denied procedural fairness by the Refugee Review Tribunal
- 2 Whether the Refugee Review Tribunal's findings were reasonable based on the evidence presented
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant was provided procedural fairness as he was given opportunity to explain discrepancies and comment on adverse material by the Refugee Review Tribunal, and there was no arguable basis for a claim to the contrary.
Court Disposition
application refused
Orders
- Federal Court Rules, O 51A r 5(1) not apply to the proceeding.
- The application for an order 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