DRE16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 494

DRE16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 494

The application for an extension of time was refused because, although the delay was about two weeks and the first respondent asserted no prejudice, there was no intelligible explanation for the delay and the merits were decisive. The proposed grounds did not identify any arguable jurisdictional error, denial of procedural fairness, misconstruction of legislation, error in refusing the adjournment, or failure to consider the applicant's circumstances. The applicant therefore demonstrated no prospects of success in the proposed appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Migration Application for Extension of Time to File a Notice of Appeal and Leave to Appeal / Application for Extension of Time Determined by the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'procedural Fairness' 'natural Justice' 'jurisdictional Error' 'section 438 Certificate']
['migration' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'procedural Fairness' 'natural Justice' 'jurisdictional Error' 'section 438 Certificate']

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

Migration Application for Extension of Time to File a Notice of Appeal and Leave to Appeal / Application for Extension of Time Determined by the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an extension of time should be granted to file a notice of appeal from judgments of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.' 'Whether the proposed appeal had prospects of success.' 'Whether the Federal Circuit Court erred in refusing an adjournment.' 'Whether the Tribunal or Federal Circuit Court denied the applicant natural justice or procedural fairness.' 'Whether any issue concerning a certificate under s 438 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) disclosed jurisdictional error.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an extension of time was refused because, although the delay was about two weeks and the first respondent asserted no prejudice, there was no intelligible explanation for the delay and the merits were decisive. The proposed grounds did not identify any arguable jurisdictional error, denial of procedural fairness, misconstruction of legislation, error in refusing the adjournment, or failure to consider the applicant's circumstances. The applicant therefore demonstrated no prospects of success in the proposed appeal.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time within which to file a notice of appeal is dismissed.' "The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs of the application."]