Wu v Minster for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 878

Wu v Minster for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 878

The Court extended time because it was not satisfied that the proposed appeal was unarguable: it was arguable that the applicant had raised before the Tribunal the question whether she was a "special need relative" because her husband's prolonged illness prevented him from looking after the child, and arguable that the Tribunal failed to address that question or misconstrued the definition as applied to the subclass 806 visa criteria.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 June 2000
Procedural Posture
Migration Application for Extension of Time to File and Serve a Notice of Appeal / Application for Extension of Time After Dismissal of Judicial Review and Affirmation of Migration Review Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Application granted; time to file and serve a notice of appeal extended to 28 July 2000, with costs of the application to be costs in the appeal.
Legal Topics
['subclass 806 Family (class Ag) Change in Circumstances (residence) Visa' 'special Need Relative' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'migration Review Tribunal' 'judicial Review']
['migration' 'administrative Law'] ['subclass 806 Family (class Ag) Change in Circumstances (residence) Visa' 'special Need Relative' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'migration Review Tribunal' 'judicial Review']

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 and Serve a Notice of Appeal / Application for Extension of Time After Dismissal of Judicial Review and Affirmation of Migration Review Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time should be extended to file and serve a notice of appeal.' 'Whether the proposed appeal was unarguable because the applicant could not satisfy the definition of "special need relative".' "Whether the Tribunal failed to address, or misconstrued, the contention that the husband's prolonged illness created the child's long-term need for assistance from the applicant."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court extended time because it was not satisfied that the proposed appeal was unarguable: it was arguable that the applicant had raised before the Tribunal the question whether she was a "special need relative" because her husband's prolonged illness prevented him from looking after the child, and arguable that the Tribunal failed to address that question or misconstrued the definition as applied to the subclass 806 visa criteria.

Court Disposition

Application granted; time to file and serve a notice of appeal extended to 28 July 2000, with costs of the application to be costs in the appeal.

Orders

  • ['The time to file and serve a notice of appeal is extended to 28 July 2000.' 'The costs of this application are costs in the appeal.']