BRG AA v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 421

BRG AA v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 421

The applications were refused because the proposed appeal had no prospects of success: the applicant was seeking again to challenge the Refugee Review Tribunal decision of 1 September 2003, which had already been decided to finality by Hely J and was res judicata.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal From the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia in a Migration Matter / Application for Extension of Time to File and Serve an Application for Leave to Appeal and Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
The application for an extension of time and the application for leave to appeal were refused, with indemnity costs fixed against the applicant.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'res Judicata' 'costs']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'res Judicata' '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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal From the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia in a Migration Matter / Application for Extension of Time to File and Serve an Application for Leave to Appeal and Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an extension of time should be granted to file and serve an application for leave to appeal from the judgment of Federal Magistrate Baumann.' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted.' 'Whether the proposed appeal had prospects of success where the applicant sought again to challenge the Refugee Review Tribunal decision dated 1 September 2003.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applications were refused because the proposed appeal had no prospects of success: the applicant was seeking again to challenge the Refugee Review Tribunal decision of 1 September 2003, which had already been decided to finality by Hely J and was res judicata.

Court Disposition

The application for an extension of time and the application for leave to appeal were refused, with indemnity costs fixed against the applicant.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time to file and serve an application for leave to appeal is refused.' 'The application for leave to appeal is refused.' 'The applicant pay the costs of the respondent on an indemnity basis fixed in the sum of $2500.']