ARK15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 349

ARK15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 349

The appeal was dismissed because the binding authority of SZTAL established that the element of intention required for 'significant harm' under the Migration Act was not satisfied on the appellant's facts, and this position has since been affirmed by the High Court.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'protection Visa' 'significant Harm' 'intention Requirement' 'complementary Protection']
['migration'] ['judicial Review' 'protection Visa' 'significant Harm' 'intention Requirement' 'complementary Protection']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal correctly construed the 'intention' requirement in defining 'significant harm' for the purposes of complementary protection under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)"]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the binding authority of SZTAL established that the element of intention required for 'significant harm' under the Migration Act was not satisfied on the appellant's facts, and this position has since been affirmed by the High Court.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant to pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement."]