Enjam v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 189

Enjam v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 189

The applicant failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay, did not identify any error in the primary judgment relevant to the merits, and absence of prejudice was insufficient to grant extension of time; consequently, the application for extension was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Decision on Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Dismissal of application for extension of time to appeal
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'judicial Review' 'visa Refusal']

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

Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Decision on Application for Extension of Time

  1. 1 ['Whether an acceptable explanation was provided for the delay in filing notice of appeal' 'Whether granting extension of time would cause prejudice to the Minister' 'The merits of the proposed appeal']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay, did not identify any error in the primary judgment relevant to the merits, and absence of prejudice was insufficient to grant extension of time; consequently, the application for extension was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Dismissal of application for extension of time to appeal

Orders

  • ["The applicant's application for an extension of time to institute his appeal be dismissed." "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the application." 'The title of the proceeding be amended to describe the first respondent as the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection.']