Applicants 42/2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 207

Applicants 42/2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 207

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant's affidavit and draft notice of appeal provided only general and unparticularised grounds, her oral submissions did not identify any arguable error, and there was nothing before the Court to suggest any prospects of success or that the Federal Magistrate's decision...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders of the Federal Magistrates Court Dismissing an Application for Judicial Review as an Abuse of Process
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'judicial Review' 'leave to Appeal' 'abuse of Process' 'jurisdictional Error' 'extension of Time']
['immigration Law' 'administrative Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'judicial Review' 'leave to Appeal' 'abuse of Process' 'jurisdictional Error' 'extension of Time']

Source-derived case record

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 Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders of the Federal Magistrates Court Dismissing an Application for Judicial Review as an Abuse of Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an extension of time was required to seek leave to appeal.' "Whether leave to appeal was required because the Federal Magistrate's orders were interlocutory." "Whether the proposed appeal had sufficient prospects of success or the Federal Magistrate's decision was attended by sufficient doubt." 'Whether the Federal Magistrates Court application was an abuse of process because it sought to re-litigate a matter already disposed of.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant's affidavit and draft notice of appeal provided only general and unparticularised grounds, her oral submissions did not identify any arguable error, and there was nothing before the Court to suggest any prospects of success or that the Federal Magistrate's decision was attended by sufficient doubt.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal is refused.' "The adult applicants are to pay the respondent's costs of the application, fixed in the amount of $1,000.00."]