CDN16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 674

CDN16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 674

Because the former third appellant was a child and therefore a person under a legal incapacity, the former second appellant consented to act, declared that she had no adverse interest, and there had been substantial compliance with rr 9.63 and 9.64, it was appropriate to appoint CDS16 as litigation representative for CDT16 and dispense with service under r 9.63(2) and any further compliance with rr 9.63 or 9.64.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in an Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia's Dismissal of an Application for Judicial Review of an Immigration Assessment Authority Decision / Determined on the Papers
Outcome
Application for appointment of litigation representative granted; compliance requirements dispensed with; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['appointment of Litigation Representative' 'person Under a Legal Incapacity' 'federal Court Rules Compliance' 'anonymisation Under Migration Legislation']
['practice and Procedure' 'migration'] ['appointment of Litigation Representative' 'person Under a Legal Incapacity' 'federal Court Rules Compliance' 'anonymisation Under Migration Legislation']

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

Interlocutory Application in an Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia's Dismissal of an Application for Judicial Review of an Immigration Assessment Authority Decision / Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether CDS16 should be appointed as litigation representative for CDT16 under r 9.63 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).' 'Whether compliance with r 9.63(2) and any further compliance with rr 9.63 or 9.64 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) should be dispensed with.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the former third appellant was a child and therefore a person under a legal incapacity, the former second appellant consented to act, declared that she had no adverse interest, and there had been substantial compliance with rr 9.63 and 9.64, it was appropriate to appoint CDS16 as litigation representative for CDT16 and dispense with service under r 9.63(2) and any further compliance with rr 9.63 or 9.64.

Court Disposition

Application for appointment of litigation representative granted; compliance requirements dispensed with; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The former second appellant be identified in any documents filed or published in this appeal as "CDS16".' 'The former third appellant be identified in any documents filed or published in this appeal as "CDT16".' 'CDS16 be appointed as litigation representative for CDT16.' 'Compliance with r 9.63(2) of the Federal...