CPN15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 834

CPN15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 834

Leave to raise the new grounds of appeal was refused because the appellant was legally represented throughout earlier proceedings, had made a conscious and informed decision to rely upon only one ground in the Federal Circuit Court, and there was no adequate explanation or merit in the proposed new grounds. Allowing new arguments would undermine the appellate process, and it was not expedient in the interests of justice to permit them. Thus, the appeal was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
['practice and Procedure' 'leave to Argue New Grounds' 'appellate Process' 'procedural Fairness' 'natural Justice' 'judicial Review']
['administrative and Constitutional Law' 'human Rights'] ['practice and Procedure' 'leave to Argue New Grounds' 'appellate Process' 'procedural Fairness' 'natural Justice' 'judicial Review']

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

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether appellant should be granted leave to rely upon new grounds of appeal not raised before the Federal Circuit Court' 'Whether procedural fairness, natural justice, and adequate consideration were afforded in the original decision']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to raise the new grounds of appeal was refused because the appellant was legally represented throughout earlier proceedings, had made a conscious and informed decision to rely upon only one ground in the Federal Circuit Court, and there was no adequate explanation or merit in the proposed new grounds. Allowing new arguments would undermine the appellate process, and it was not expedient in the interests of justice to permit them. Thus, the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'The Appellant is to pay the costs of the First Respondent, either as agreed or assessed.']