BLJ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 525

BLJ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 525

Although prejudice to the first respondent was not apparent and there was an acceptable explanation for the short delay in filing the extension of time application, the applicant did not provide a draft notice of appeal, did not identify grounds of appeal, and could not identify error in the Federal Circuit Court judgment. Having regard to the primary judge's careful and detailed reasons rejecting the judicial review grounds and finding no jurisdictional error, any appeal had no reasonably arguable prospect of success, so reinstatement was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Application to Reinstate Proceeding / Interlocutory Application Dated 27 March 2018 to Set Aside Orders Made on 1 March 2018 Dismissing an Application for Extension of Time to Appeal From Orders of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia
Outcome
The applicant's application dated 27 March 2018 was dismissed, with costs payable to the first respondent.
Legal Topics
['reinstatement of Proceeding' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'failure to Appear' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error']
['administrative Law' 'migration Law'] ['reinstatement of Proceeding' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'failure to Appear' 'judicial Review' '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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application to Reinstate Proceeding / Interlocutory Application Dated 27 March 2018 to Set Aside Orders Made on 1 March 2018 Dismissing an Application for Extension of Time to Appeal From Orders of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's proceeding should be reinstated after dismissal for non-appearance." 'Whether the applicant had a reasonable excuse for absence from the hearing at which the proceeding was dismissed.' 'Whether reinstatement would cause prejudice to the first respondent.' 'Whether the substantive application for an extension of time to appeal had a reasonably arguable prospect of success.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although prejudice to the first respondent was not apparent and there was an acceptable explanation for the short delay in filing the extension of time application, the applicant did not provide a draft notice of appeal, did not identify grounds of appeal, and could not identify error in the Federal Circuit Court judgment. Having regard to the primary judge's careful and detailed reasons rejecting the judicial review grounds and finding no jurisdictional error, any appeal had no reasonably arguable prospect of success, so reinstatement was refused.

Court Disposition

The applicant's application dated 27 March 2018 was dismissed, with costs payable to the first respondent.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's application dated 27 March 2018 be dismissed." "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs, to be taxed if not agreed."]