DZX16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 850

DZX16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 850

The extension of time was refused because the proposed application for leave to appeal would fail. The primary judge's refusal of an adjournment was not attended with sufficient doubt: the applicant had notice of the hearing, there was no adequate explanation for why the judicial review application and extension application were not ready, and counsel identified no arguable jurisdictional error beyond concern about harm in Papua New Guinea. An adjournment was unlikely to serve a useful purpose. The applicant also failed to show substantial prejudice because, given the extraordinary delay and lack of an arguable case, any remitted extension application in the Federal Circuit Court would...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for an Extension of Time Within Which to Seek Leave to Appeal From Orders of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia in a Migration Judicial Review Matter / Federal Court Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa Refusal' 'judicial Review' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'adjournment' 'jurisdictional Error']
['migration' 'administrative Law' 'practice and Procedure'] ['protection Visa Refusal' 'judicial Review' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'adjournment' 'jurisdictional Error']

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 Within Which to Seek Leave to Appeal From Orders of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia in a Migration Judicial Review Matter / Federal Court Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether an extension of time should be granted for the applicant to seek leave to appeal from the Federal Circuit Court's refusal of an adjournment." "Whether there was sufficient doubt attending the primary judge's decision to refuse an adjournment to warrant reconsideration by the Federal Court." "Whether the applicant would suffer substantial prejudice if leave to appeal were refused, supposing the primary judge's decision to be wrong." "Whether the applicant had an arguable jurisdictional error challenge to the Tribunal's decision."]

Ratio Decidendi

The extension of time was refused because the proposed application for leave to appeal would fail. The primary judge's refusal of an adjournment was not attended with sufficient doubt: the applicant had notice of the hearing, there was no adequate explanation for why the judicial review application and extension application were not ready, and counsel identified no arguable jurisdictional error beyond concern about harm in Papua New Guinea. An adjournment was unlikely to serve a useful purpose. The applicant also failed to show substantial prejudice because, given the extraordinary delay and lack of an arguable case, any remitted extension application in the Federal Circuit Court would...

Court Disposition

Application for an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal dated 2 March 2018 be refused.' "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the aforesaid application and the costs of the application for an extension of time within which to appeal dated 19 October 2017."]