Applicants A64 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1142

Applicants A64 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1142

The refusal to extend time to seek leave to appeal from the 29 May 2003 orders was unnecessary because those orders did not finally determine the substantive rights of the parties, and the principal application remained on foot. The applicants may re-apply for an extension of time, and no real injustice results from the refusal.

Parties
Applicant: Applicants A64 of 2002; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs; Second Respondent: Member Refugee Review Tribunal; Third Respondent: Principal Member of the Refugee Review Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Motion for Extension of Time Following Remittal From High Court
Outcome
No order made on the application for extension of time or leave to appeal
Legal Topics
Prerogative Relief, Extension of Time, Judicial Review, Remittal From High Court
Immigration Administrative Law Practice and Procedure Prerogative Relief Extension of Time Judicial Review Remittal From High Court

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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Applicants A64 of 2002

Applicant

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

First Respondent

Member Refugee Review Tribunal

Second Respondent

Principal Member of the Refugee Review Tribunal

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Motion for Extension of Time Following Remittal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for extension of time to appeal from the 29 May 2003 judgment was necessary
  2. 2 Whether the 29 May 2003 orders finally determined the rights of the parties
  3. 3 Whether refusal of extension of time constitutes a final determination

Ratio Decidendi

The refusal to extend time to seek leave to appeal from the 29 May 2003 orders was unnecessary because those orders did not finally determine the substantive rights of the parties, and the principal application remained on foot. The applicants may re-apply for an extension of time, and no real injustice results from the refusal.

Court Disposition

No order made on the application for extension of time or leave to appeal

Orders

  • Costs of the application of 26 June 2003 to be costs in the principal application instituted in the High Court on 17 May 2002 and remitted to this Court by order made on 7 February 2003