Tennakoon v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1685

Tennakoon v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1685

The Court refused leave to amend and the adjournment because the material before it showed no, or only the most remote, prospect that the appellant could obtain legally admissible and cogent evidence proving the alleged 1993 arrest warrant. The explanation for the last-minute discovery of the document was...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia Concerning a Refugee Review Tribunal Protection Visa Decision / Application for Leave to Amend the Notice of Appeal and for Adjournment of the Hearing
Outcome
Application for leave to amend the notice of appeal and for adjournment refused; appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'no Evidence Ground' 'leave to Amend Notice of Appeal' 'adjournment' 'arrest Warrant Evidence']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'civil Procedure' 'evidence'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'no Evidence Ground' 'leave to Amend Notice of Appeal' 'adjournment' 'arrest Warrant Evidence']

Source-derived case record

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

Appeal From a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia Concerning a Refugee Review Tribunal Protection Visa Decision / Application for Leave to Amend the Notice of Appeal and for Adjournment of the Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave should be granted to amend the notice of appeal to allege that there was no evidence or other material to justify the Refugee Review Tribunal's decision because an arrest warrant existed." 'Whether the hearing should be adjourned to allow the appellant to obtain evidence to support the proposed new ground of appeal.' 'Whether the material before the Court showed a sufficient prospect that the appellant could prove the existence of the alleged 1993 arrest warrant.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused leave to amend and the adjournment because the material before it showed no, or only the most remote, prospect that the appellant could obtain legally admissible and cogent evidence proving the alleged 1993 arrest warrant. The explanation for the last-minute discovery of the document was implausible, and the facsimile document was not plainly an arrest warrant, appeared to be a summons, was incomplete in important respects, and did not indicate authentic court process requiring the appellant's attendance to answer a criminal charge. As counsel accepted that the appeal must fail if the adjournment were refused, the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to amend the notice of appeal and for adjournment refused; appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to amend the notice of appeal and for adjournment of the hearing is refused.' 'The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal."]