BBU15 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 1324

BBU15 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 1324

The applicant failed to provide an adequate explanation for the 10-month delay and the only available ground of appeal lacked reasonable prospects of success; thus, extension of time was not granted.

Parties
Applicant: BBU15; First Respondent: Minister for Home Affairs; Second Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Judgment on Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time to Appeal, Judicial Review, Ministerial Direction No. 56, Protection Visa, Jurisdictional Error
Migration Law Administrative Law Extension of Time to Appeal Judicial Review Ministerial Direction No. 56 Protection Visa Jurisdictional Error

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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BBU15

Applicant

Minister for Home Affairs

First Respondent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Judgment on Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an adequate explanation for delay in filing notice of appeal exists
  2. 2 Whether the proposed appeal has reasonable prospects of success
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal failed to comply with Ministerial Direction No. 56

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide an adequate explanation for the 10-month delay and the only available ground of appeal lacked reasonable prospects of success; thus, extension of time was not granted.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for an extension of time within which to file a notice of appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicant must pay the first respondent's costs, to be assessed if not agreed.