FDT20 v Minister for Home Affairs [2021] FCA 1484

FDT20 v Minister for Home Affairs [2021] FCA 1484

Leave to amend the notice of appeal was refused primarily because there was no sufficient explanation for delay and prejudice to the respondents, the proposed ground lacked merit, conflicted with established authority that reasonable practicability of removal does not require a non-refoulement assessment, and would improperly transform the appeal into an exercise of original jurisdiction.

Parties
Appellant: FDT20; First Respondent: Minister for Home Affairs; Second Respondent: Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs; Third Respondent: Commonwealth of Australia; Fourth Respondent: Secretary, Department of Home Affairs
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Judicial Review, Non Refoulement, Immigration Detention, Regional Processing Country, Leave to Amend Notice of Appeal
Migration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Habeas Corpus Mandamus Judicial Review Non Refoulement +3 more

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FDT20

Appellant

Minister for Home Affairs

First Respondent

Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

Second Respondent

Commonwealth of Australia

Third Respondent

Secretary, Department of Home Affairs

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to amend notice of appeal to raise a new ground regarding non-refoulement assessment prior to removal under s 198AD of the Migration Act
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's detention was unlawful due to failure to remove as soon as reasonably practicable
  3. 3 Whether the respondents were required to conduct a non-refoulement assessment before removing or returning the appellant to regional processing country

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend the notice of appeal was refused primarily because there was no sufficient explanation for delay and prejudice to the respondents, the proposed ground lacked merit, conflicted with established authority that reasonable practicability of removal does not require a non-refoulement assessment, and would improperly transform the appeal into an exercise of original jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to amend the notice of appeal filed on 12 August 2021 is refused.
  • The appeal be dismissed.