CVR15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 248

CVR15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 248

The applicant had adequate notice of the hearing and failed to appear. Section 25(2B)(bb)(ii), read with s 25(2BA) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), applied to the extension of time application. Although the short delay was adequately explained and no prejudice was asserted, the proposed appeal lacked sufficient merit because the Tribunal's reasons showed it considered the applicant's claims about relocation, mental condition and fear of return. It was therefore appropriate to dismiss the application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for an Extension of Time to File an Appeal Under R 36.05 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) / Hearing of Application; Application Dismissed for Non Appearance
Outcome
Application for an extension of time dismissed under s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'non Appearance at Hearing' 'protection Visa' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'relocation']
['practice and Procedure' 'administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights' 'migration'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'non Appearance at Hearing' 'protection Visa' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'relocation']

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 an Extension of Time to File an Appeal Under R 36.05 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) / Hearing of Application; Application Dismissed for Non Appearance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the application for an extension of time should be dismissed under s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) because the applicant failed to attend the hearing.' 'Whether there was sufficient merit in the proposed appeal to justify granting an extension of time.' "Whether the Tribunal failed to deal with an integer of the applicant's claims in relation to relocation."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant had adequate notice of the hearing and failed to appear. Section 25(2B)(bb)(ii), read with s 25(2BA) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), applied to the extension of time application. Although the short delay was adequately explained and no prejudice was asserted, the proposed appeal lacked sufficient merit because the Tribunal's reasons showed it considered the applicant's claims about relocation, mental condition and fear of return. It was therefore appropriate to dismiss the application.

Court Disposition

Application for an extension of time dismissed under s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time be dismissed under s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).' "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the application, as agreed or assessed."]