Tervonen v Minister for Home Affairs (No. 3) [2008] FCA 1432

Tervonen v Minister for Home Affairs (No. 3) [2008] FCA 1432

The notice of motion was dismissed because Mr Tervonen could not revive discontinued proceedings by filing a notice of motion, could not impeach his counsel's earlier conduct many months later, and the proposed challenge to the third s 16 notice was misplaced and of no utility because the Minister did not rely on that notice and Mr Tervonen's detention was founded on s 21 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth), not on the third notice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 September 2008
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion Seeking Leave to Review a Notice Issued Under S 16 of the Extradition Act 1988 (cth) / Duty Judge Determination of Notice of Motion After Discontinuance of Earlier Proceedings
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['notice Under S 16 of the Extradition Act 1988 (cth)' 'discontinued Proceedings' 'leave to Review' 'detention Pending Extradition Appeal' 'utility of Proceedings']
['extradition' 'administrative Law' 'federal Court Procedure'] ['notice Under S 16 of the Extradition Act 1988 (cth)' 'discontinued Proceedings' 'leave to Review' 'detention Pending Extradition Appeal' 'utility of Proceedings']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion Seeking Leave to Review a Notice Issued Under S 16 of the Extradition Act 1988 (cth) / Duty Judge Determination of Notice of Motion After Discontinuance of Earlier Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mr Tervonen should be granted leave to review the notice issued under s 16 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) on 11 November 2007.' 'Whether a notice of motion could revive proceedings that had been discontinued.' "Whether the third s 16 notice provided the legal foundation for Mr Tervonen's continued detention."]

Ratio Decidendi

The notice of motion was dismissed because Mr Tervonen could not revive discontinued proceedings by filing a notice of motion, could not impeach his counsel's earlier conduct many months later, and the proposed challenge to the third s 16 notice was misplaced and of no utility because the Minister did not rely on that notice and Mr Tervonen's detention was founded on s 21 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth), not on the third notice.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion be dismissed.']