Lamichhane v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 776

Lamichhane v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 776

The adjournment application was refused because the appellant had an adequate opportunity to obtain representation and the medical certificates did not show inability to participate in the hearing. No ground of appeal was made out: the change of Judge disclosed no error, the unspecified relevant-consideration ground identified no error, and the primary Judge's prior reading of the material and delivery of ex tempore reasons did not firmly establish a reasonable apprehension of bias, particularly where written submissions had been filed and the reasons engaged with oral submissions. The appeal was therefore dismissed with costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Dismissal of Judicial Review Application Concerning Refusal of Partner (residence) Visa / Appeal Dismissed by the Federal Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['adjournment' 'medical Certificates' 'legal Representation' 'reasonable Apprehension of Bias' 'ex Tempore Reasons' 'judicial Review of Tribunal Decision' 'partner Visa Refusal']
['administrative Law' 'migration Law' 'practice and Procedure'] ['adjournment' 'medical Certificates' 'legal Representation' 'reasonable Apprehension of Bias' 'ex Tempore Reasons' 'judicial Review of Tribunal Decision' 'partner Visa Refusal']

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 From Federal Circuit Court Dismissal of Judicial Review Application Concerning Refusal of Partner (residence) Visa / Appeal Dismissed by the Federal Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appeal hearing should be adjourned because the appellant wished to secure legal representation or because of his medical condition' "Whether the primary Judge's preparation before the hearing and delivery of ex tempore reasons gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias" 'Whether the primary Judge engaged in merits review or otherwise failed to consider relevant matters']

Ratio Decidendi

The adjournment application was refused because the appellant had an adequate opportunity to obtain representation and the medical certificates did not show inability to participate in the hearing. No ground of appeal was made out: the change of Judge disclosed no error, the unspecified relevant-consideration ground identified no error, and the primary Judge's prior reading of the material and delivery of ex tempore reasons did not firmly establish a reasonable apprehension of bias, particularly where written submissions had been filed and the reasons engaged with oral submissions. The appeal was therefore dismissed with costs.

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.']