Applicant S335 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2005] FCA 1439

Applicant S335 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2005] FCA 1439

Leave to appeal was refused because there were no sufficient grounds to doubt the correctness of the primary judge's orders. The procedural fairness ground had no merit because the Tribunal gave the applicant's adviser an opportunity to comment on the country information before its decision. The other grounds raised on the leave application were not raised before the primary judge and in any event challenged the merits of the Tribunal's decision.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Migration; Application for Leave to Appeal Concerning Refusal of an Order Nisi for a Constitutional Writ / Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs fixed at $600.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'procedural Fairness' 'natural Justice' 'country Information' 'leave to Appeal' 'order Nisi' 'constitutional Writ']
['administrative Law' 'migration Law' 'refugee Law'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'procedural Fairness' 'natural Justice' 'country Information' 'leave to Appeal' 'order Nisi' 'constitutional Writ']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Migration; Application for Leave to Appeal Concerning Refusal of an Order Nisi for a Constitutional Writ / Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the primary judge's interlocutory refusal of an order nisi." 'Whether the Tribunal denied procedural fairness or natural justice by failing to give the applicant a fair opportunity to respond to country information.' "Whether additional grounds raised on the leave application should be considered where they were not raised before the primary judge and challenged the merits of the Tribunal's decision."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because there were no sufficient grounds to doubt the correctness of the primary judge's orders. The procedural fairness ground had no merit because the Tribunal gave the applicant's adviser an opportunity to comment on the country information before its decision. The other grounds raised on the leave application were not raised before the primary judge and in any event challenged the merits of the Tribunal's decision.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs fixed at $600.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the second respondent's costs of the application for leave to appeal." 'The amount of the costs referred to in order 2 be fixed at $600.']