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.
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Decision on Application for Extension of Time
Legal Issues
- 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.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment