DCZ16 v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1738

DCZ16 v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1738

The applicant's proposed grounds of appeal did not establish any jurisdictional error or error of law by the Tribunal or by the Federal Circuit Court, nor did they demonstrate any relevant procedural unfairness or failure to consider complementary protection. There was no sufficient basis for granting an extension of time to appeal.

Parties
Applicant: DCZ16; First Respondent: Minister for Home Affairs; Second Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Federal Court Decision on Extension of Time
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused
Legal Topics
Extension of Time to Appeal, Procedural Fairness, Jurisdictional Error, Complementary Protection, Natural Justice
Migration Law Administrative Law Extension of Time to Appeal Procedural Fairness Jurisdictional Error Complementary Protection Natural Justice

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DCZ16

Applicant

Minister for Home Affairs

First Respondent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Federal Court Decision on Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether grounds exist to justify an extension of time to appeal from judgment dismissing application for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal afforded procedural fairness and complied with statutory process
  3. 3 Whether jurisdictional error was made by the Tribunal or Federal Circuit Court

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's proposed grounds of appeal did not establish any jurisdictional error or error of law by the Tribunal or by the Federal Circuit Court, nor did they demonstrate any relevant procedural unfairness or failure to consider complementary protection. There was no sufficient basis for granting an extension of time to appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused

Orders

  • The application for an extension of time is refused.
  • The applicant pay the costs of the first respondent, as agreed or assessed.