Tervonen v Finland [2009] FCAFC 3

Tervonen v Finland [2009] FCAFC 3

The appeal was dismissed because the proceedings before the primary judge, directed broadly to restraining Finland from pressing its extradition request and the Minister from acting on it, had no prospect of success and raised no justiciable issue capable of engaging jurisdiction under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). The further amended application directed to s 22 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) did not provide a legal foundation for the declaratory relief sought, and the appellant's arguments about s 16 were in any event barred by issue estoppel or Anshun estoppel.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning Extradition and Judicial Review Under S 39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) / Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia After Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['extraditable Person Under the Extradition Act 1988 (cth)' 'judicial Review Under S 39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth)' 'anshun Estoppel' 'issue Estoppel' 'abuse of Process']
['extradition' 'administrative Law' 'practice and Procedure'] ['extraditable Person Under the Extradition Act 1988 (cth)' 'judicial Review Under S 39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth)' 'anshun Estoppel' 'issue Estoppel' 'abuse of Process']

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

Appeal Concerning Extradition and Judicial Review Under S 39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) / Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia After Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellant was an "extraditable person" within the meaning of s 6(a)(i) of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth).' "Whether the application attacking Finland's extradition request raised any justiciable issue capable of engaging jurisdiction under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)." 'Whether the proceedings were incapable of success.' 'Whether issue estoppel or Anshun estoppel barred the appellant from pursuing the proceedings.' 'Whether the proceedings were an abuse of process.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the proceedings before the primary judge, directed broadly to restraining Finland from pressing its extradition request and the Minister from acting on it, had no prospect of success and raised no justiciable issue capable of engaging jurisdiction under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). The further amended application directed to s 22 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) did not provide a legal foundation for the declaratory relief sought, and the appellant's arguments about s 16 were in any event barred by issue estoppel or Anshun estoppel.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' "The appellant is to pay the third respondent's costs of the appeal."]