Pannu v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2) [2013] FCA 1406

Pannu v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2) [2013] FCA 1406

The interlocutory application was refused because the applicant did not provide a proper explanation for his failure to attend the hearings on 15 November and 21 November 2013, and did not demonstrate merit in the underlying application for permission to appeal. The requested adjournment was also refused because the applicant had ample opportunity to obtain legal representation and the reasons advanced were treated with circumspection.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Migration Matter; Interlocutory Application to Re Open Application for Leave to Appeal / Interlocutory Application Filed on 11 December 2013 Seeking Re Opening of the Application for Leave to Appeal Dismissed on 21 November 2013
Outcome
The application of 11 December 2013 was refused, and the applicant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs.
Legal Topics
['re Opening of Application for Leave to Appeal' 'failure to Attend Hearing' 'adjournment' 'judicial Review of Migration Review Tribunal Decision' 'costs']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'federal Court Procedure'] ['re Opening of Application for Leave to Appeal' 'failure to Attend Hearing' 'adjournment' 'judicial Review of Migration Review Tribunal Decision' 'costs']

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

Migration Matter; Interlocutory Application to Re Open Application for Leave to Appeal / Interlocutory Application Filed on 11 December 2013 Seeking Re Opening of the Application for Leave to Appeal Dismissed on 21 November 2013

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should adjourn the interlocutory application so the applicant could obtain legal advice and assistance.' 'Whether the applicant provided an adequate explanation for failing to attend the directions hearing on 15 November 2013 and the substantive hearing on 21 November 2013.' 'Whether there was utility or purpose in setting aside the dismissal order having regard to the merit of the application for leave to appeal.' 'Whether the application for leave to appeal should be re-opened.']

Ratio Decidendi

The interlocutory application was refused because the applicant did not provide a proper explanation for his failure to attend the hearings on 15 November and 21 November 2013, and did not demonstrate merit in the underlying application for permission to appeal. The requested adjournment was also refused because the applicant had ample opportunity to obtain legal representation and the reasons advanced were treated with circumspection.

Court Disposition

The application of 11 December 2013 was refused, and the applicant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs.

Orders

  • ['The application of 11 December 2013 is refused.' "The applicant is to pay the first respondent's costs of and incidental to the application, to be taxed or agreed."]