Applicant S226/2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1674

Applicant S226/2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1674

The application was dismissed because the material did not disclose any basis on which the Court could reasonably conclude there was at least an arguable case for constitutional writ relief. The Tribunal had been entitled to proceed under s 426A after refusing a second adjournment request where the psychologist's report did not state that the applicant was unfit to give evidence, and the asserted grounds of jurisdictional error were either unparticularised or inapplicable to the facts.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Migration; Application for Order Nisi Seeking Constitutional Writ Relief in Respect of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of Protection Visas / Application Considered on the Papers After Remittal From the High Court of Australia
Outcome
Application dismissed; applicants ordered to pay the respondents' costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visas' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'order Nisi' 'constitutional Writ Relief' 'procedural Fairness' 'jurisdictional Error' 'adjournment' 'section 426 a of the Migration Act 1958 (cth)']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visas' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'order Nisi' 'constitutional Writ Relief' 'procedural Fairness' 'jurisdictional Error' 'adjournment' 'section 426 a of the Migration Act 1958 (cth)']

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 Order Nisi Seeking Constitutional Writ Relief in Respect of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of Protection Visas / Application Considered on the Papers After Remittal From the High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the material disclosed an arguable case for the making of an order nisi for constitutional writ relief.' 'Whether the Refugee Review Tribunal acted improperly or denied procedural fairness by proceeding under s 426A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) when the applicant did not attend the rescheduled hearing after a second adjournment request was refused.' 'Whether there was material to show that the Tribunal fell into jurisdictional error such that its decision should be quashed and the Minister restrained from acting on it.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the material did not disclose any basis on which the Court could reasonably conclude there was at least an arguable case for constitutional writ relief. The Tribunal had been entitled to proceed under s 426A after refusing a second adjournment request where the psychologist's report did not state that the applicant was unfit to give evidence, and the asserted grounds of jurisdictional error were either unparticularised or inapplicable to the facts.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; applicants ordered to pay the respondents' costs.

Orders

  • ['The applicant for order nisi be dismissed.' "The applicants are to pay the respondents' costs."]