CPK20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 870

CPK20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 870

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant did not demonstrate arguable legal error in Mortimer J's assessment of the serious question to be tried, the low prospects of success, or the balance of convenience. The decision was not attended with sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration by a Full Court, and substantial injustice would not result if leave were refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From Dismissal of an Application for an Interlocutory Injunction Restraining Removal From Australia / Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed; leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Decision' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'ministerial Intervention Under S 351 of the Migration Act 1958 (cth)' 'legal Unreasonableness' 'removal From Australia']
['practice and Procedure' 'migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Decision' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'ministerial Intervention Under S 351 of the Migration Act 1958 (cth)' 'legal Unreasonableness' 'removal From Australia']

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 for Leave to Appeal From Dismissal of an Application for an Interlocutory Injunction Restraining Removal From Australia / Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave to appeal should be granted from Mortimer J's interlocutory decision dismissing an injunction application" "Whether Mortimer J's decision was attended with sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration by a Full Court" 'Whether substantial injustice would result if leave to appeal were refused' 'Whether Mortimer J made arguable legal error in assessing the prima facie case and balance of convenience']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant did not demonstrate arguable legal error in Mortimer J's assessment of the serious question to be tried, the low prospects of success, or the balance of convenience. The decision was not attended with sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration by a Full Court, and substantial injustice would not result if leave were refused.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the respondents' costs in the sum of $2000."]