CEK15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 227

CEK15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 227

Although the applicant had a satisfactory explanation for failing to appear because the Court file did not conclusively show she was notified of the relisted date, reinstatement was refused because she did not demonstrate an arguable case in the appeal. The grounds were vague and unparticularised, identified no error beyond an assertion of jurisdictional error, invited impermissible merits review, no written submissions identified error, and no error in the Federal Circuit Court decision was apparent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal; Interlocutory Application to Reinstate Proceedings / Interlocutory Application to Set Aside Dismissal Orders and Reinstate Appeal
Outcome
Interlocutory application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'failure to Appear' 'reinstatement of Appeal' 'arguable Case']
['migration' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'failure to Appear' 'reinstatement of Appeal' 'arguable Case']

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 Appeal; Interlocutory Application to Reinstate Proceedings / Interlocutory Application to Set Aside Dismissal Orders and Reinstate Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant had a satisfactory explanation for failing to appear at the hearing on 16 November 2016' 'Whether the applicant had an arguable case in the principal proceeding sufficient to justify reinstatement of the appeal']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the applicant had a satisfactory explanation for failing to appear because the Court file did not conclusively show she was notified of the relisted date, reinstatement was refused because she did not demonstrate an arguable case in the appeal. The grounds were vague and unparticularised, identified no error beyond an assertion of jurisdictional error, invited impermissible merits review, no written submissions identified error, and no error in the Federal Circuit Court decision was apparent.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The interlocutory application filed on 15 December 2016 by the applicant be dismissed.' 'The costs of the first respondent be paid by the applicant, such costs to be taxed if not otherwise agreed.']