Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 247

Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 247

The applicant failed to comply with the Registrar's order to file and serve written submissions, failed to appear at the original and adjourned hearings despite notice and warning that the application might be dismissed, and provided no explanation for her absence. In those circumstances she was a party in default under r 5.22 and it was appropriate to dismiss the application for an extension of time.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time Within Which to Appeal From Orders of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia / Hearing of Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application for extension of time dismissed with costs payable by the applicant to the first respondent.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'judicial Review of Migration Review Tribunal Decision' 'default' 'failure to Comply With Court Orders' 'failure to Prosecute With Due Diligence' 'dismissal for Non Appearance']
['migration Law' 'federal Civil Procedure'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'judicial Review of Migration Review Tribunal Decision' 'default' 'failure to Comply With Court Orders' 'failure to Prosecute With Due Diligence' 'dismissal for Non Appearance']

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 Extension of Time Within Which to Appeal From Orders of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia / Hearing of Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant was a party in default under r 5.22 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).' "Whether the application for an extension of time should be dismissed because the applicant failed to comply with the Registrar's order, failed to appear, and did not prosecute the proceeding with due diligence."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to comply with the Registrar's order to file and serve written submissions, failed to appear at the original and adjourned hearings despite notice and warning that the application might be dismissed, and provided no explanation for her absence. In those circumstances she was a party in default under r 5.22 and it was appropriate to dismiss the application for an extension of time.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time dismissed with costs payable by the applicant to the first respondent.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time dated 20 November 2013 be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of and incidental to the application."]