AYE15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1517

AYE15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1517

The appeal was dismissed under r 36.75(1)(a)(i) because the appellant failed to appear when the appeal was called on for hearing, had filed no written submissions despite orders, had not responded to repeated attempts by the Registry and AGS to contact him, appeared to have departed Australia and lacked a visa to re-enter, and the appeal grounds were broad, generic, partly not raised below and not shown to have merit.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal / Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court Dismissing an Application for Judicial Review of a Tribunal Decision; Application to Dismiss Appeal for Appellant's Non Appearance
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'judicial Review' 'non Appearance at Appeal Hearing' 'dismissal of Appeal Under R 36.75(1)(a)(i)' 'costs']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['protection Visa' 'judicial Review' 'non Appearance at Appeal Hearing' 'dismissal of Appeal Under R 36.75(1)(a)(i)' 'costs']

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 Appeal / Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court Dismissing an Application for Judicial Review of a Tribunal Decision; Application to Dismiss Appeal for Appellant's Non Appearance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appeal should be dismissed under r 36.75(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) because the appellant was absent when the appeal was called on for hearing.' "Whether the appellant's failure to file submissions, failure to respond to attempts at contact, departure from Australia, and broadly expressed appeal grounds supported dismissal of the appeal."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed under r 36.75(1)(a)(i) because the appellant failed to appear when the appeal was called on for hearing, had filed no written submissions despite orders, had not responded to repeated attempts by the Registry and AGS to contact him, appeared to have departed Australia and lacked a visa to re-enter, and the appeal grounds were broad, generic, partly not raised below and not shown to have merit.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed pursuant to r 36.75(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).' "Subject to order 3, the appellant is to pay the first respondent's costs as agreed or assessed, but in any event not to exceed the sum of $4,500." 'There be no order as to the costs occasioned by and incidental to the...