BBR18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 138

BBR18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 138

The application for an extension of time was refused because the applicant had not identified arguable grounds of appeal with particularity, had failed to comply with orders to file a particularised draft notice of appeal and submissions, there was no appearance by or on behalf of the applicant and the email from Aquila Lawyers was obscure, and the application was interlocutory in nature.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for an Extension of Time Within Which to File a Notice of Appeal From a Decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia / Application Dismissed
Outcome
The application for an extension of time within which to file a notice of appeal was dismissed with costs, and the question of the applicant's legal practitioner's liability for costs was reserved.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal' 'protection Visa' 'fast Track Review' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'costs Liability of Legal Practitioner']
['administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights' 'migration Law' 'practice and Procedure'] ['extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal' 'protection Visa' 'fast Track Review' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'costs Liability of Legal Practitioner']

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 an Extension of Time Within Which to File a Notice of Appeal From a Decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia / Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time within which to file a notice of appeal from the Federal Circuit Court's decision." 'Whether the proposed ground of appeal was sufficiently particularised and had sufficient prospects of success.' "Whether the applicant's non-appearance and failure to comply with Court orders supported refusal of the application."]

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an extension of time was refused because the applicant had not identified arguable grounds of appeal with particularity, had failed to comply with orders to file a particularised draft notice of appeal and submissions, there was no appearance by or on behalf of the applicant and the email from Aquila Lawyers was obscure, and the application was interlocutory in nature.

Court Disposition

The application for an extension of time within which to file a notice of appeal was dismissed with costs, and the question of the applicant's legal practitioner's liability for costs was reserved.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time within which to file a notice of appeal is dismissed with costs.' "The question of the liability of the applicant's legal practitioner for costs be reserved." "Any application by the first respondent in respect of the liability of the applicant's legal practitioner for...