DGC18 v Minister for Home Affairs (No 2) [2019] FCA 268

DGC18 v Minister for Home Affairs (No 2) [2019] FCA 268

Although the appeals could not succeed and did not have strong prospects, the delay was not significant, the respondent was not prejudiced, some applicants were self-represented, related matters were heard and treated together, and the administration of justice favoured placing these applicants in the same procedural position as the five related appellants. Extensions of time and leave where relevant were therefore granted, but the appeals were dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Applications for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal, or Extension of Time to Appeal, Concerning Unsuccessful Applications for Protection (class Xa) Visas / Federal Court Determination of Extensions of Time, Leave to Appeal Where Relevant, and Appeals
Outcome
Extensions of time granted; leave to appeal granted in DGC18 and BRJ18; appeals dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'protection (class Xa) Visas' 'special Leave Position' 'appeals From Federal Circuit Court of Australia']
['administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights' 'migration Law' 'practice and Procedure'] ['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'protection (class Xa) Visas' 'special Leave Position' 'appeals From Federal Circuit Court of 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

Applications for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal, or Extension of Time to Appeal, Concerning Unsuccessful Applications for Protection (class Xa) Visas / Federal Court Determination of Extensions of Time, Leave to Appeal Where Relevant, and Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether extensions of time and, where relevant, leave to appeal should be granted to place the four applicants in the same procedural position as five related appellants heard at the same time.' 'Whether the appeals should be dismissed where all matters raised the same ground of appeal and judgment had been delivered in related matters.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the appeals could not succeed and did not have strong prospects, the delay was not significant, the respondent was not prejudiced, some applicants were self-represented, related matters were heard and treated together, and the administration of justice favoured placing these applicants in the same procedural position as the five related appellants. Extensions of time and leave where relevant were therefore granted, but the appeals were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Extensions of time granted; leave to appeal granted in DGC18 and BRJ18; appeals dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['In NSD 1405 of 2018 DGC18 v Minister for Home Affairs, the application for an extension of time in which to file any application for leave to appeal, and the application for leave to appeal, be granted and the appeal dismissed with costs.' 'In NSD 1940 of 2018 BRJ18 v Minister for Home Affairs, the application for...