AXM15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1186

AXM15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1186

The application for extension of time was dismissed because the explanation provided by the applicant, based on mental health, did not satisfactorily account for the extensive delay; and the proposed grounds of appeal lacked merit, as the Tribunal's findings on 'intention' accorded with binding High Court authority (SZTAL), and the other grounds did not identify legal errors.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Migration Application for Extension of Time (appeal) / Judgment on Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal
Outcome
Application for extension of time dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'protection Visa' 'judicial Review' 'tribunal Procedures' 'significant Harm Under Migration Act' 'mental Health and Delay' 'merits of Appeal Grounds']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'human Rights Law'] ['extension of Time' 'protection Visa' 'judicial Review' 'tribunal Procedures' 'significant Harm Under Migration Act' 'mental Health and Delay' 'merits of Appeal Grounds']

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

Migration Application for Extension of Time (appeal) / Judgment on Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant provided a satisfactory explanation for a significant delay in filing notice of appeal' "Whether the applicant's mental health sufficiently explained the delay" "Whether there was merit in the proposed grounds of appeal (legal error regarding definition of 'intentionally inflicted' pain, consideration of mental health, handling of further evidence)"]

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time was dismissed because the explanation provided by the applicant, based on mental health, did not satisfactorily account for the extensive delay; and the proposed grounds of appeal lacked merit, as the Tribunal's findings on 'intention' accorded with binding High Court authority (SZTAL), and the other grounds did not identify legal errors.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for extension of time filed on 22 January 2018 be dismissed with costs.']