BOW15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 882

BOW15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 882

Because the applicant had notice of the adjourned hearing, failed to attend, and did not provide a sufficient explanation justifying deferral, the Court dismissed the application for extension of time and leave to appeal under r 35.33(1)(a)(i) with costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Migration Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal From a Federal Circuit Court of Australia Decision / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Dismissed After Applicant Failed to Attend Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'non Appearance at Hearing' 'dismissal for Absence' 'costs']
['migration' 'administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights' 'appeals and Leave to Appeal'] ['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'non Appearance at Hearing' 'dismissal for Absence' '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 Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal From a Federal Circuit Court of Australia Decision / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Dismissed After Applicant Failed to Attend Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the application for extension of time and leave to appeal should proceed despite the applicant's non-appearance at the hearing." 'Whether the Court should dismiss the application under r 35.33(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).' 'Whether the applicant had notice of the hearing and provided sufficient explanation for non-attendance.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the applicant had notice of the adjourned hearing, failed to attend, and did not provide a sufficient explanation justifying deferral, the Court dismissed the application for extension of time and leave to appeal under r 35.33(1)(a)(i) with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for extension of time and leave to appeal is dismissed pursuant to r 35.33(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).' "The applicant must pay the first respondent's costs as agreed or taxed."]