Buultjens v Robertson [2010] FCA 134

Buultjens v Robertson [2010] FCA 134

Leave to appeal was refused because there was no sufficient doubt about the correctness of the primary judge's conclusion that s 476A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) excluded the Federal Court's jurisdiction over the appellant's proceeding, and no substantial injustice would follow if leave were refused. The...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Judgment Dismissing an Application as Incompetent in a Migration Matter / Leave to Appeal
Outcome
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed, with costs.
Legal Topics
['ministerial Intervention Under S 351 of the Migration Act 1958 (cth)' 'federal Court Jurisdiction Under S 476 a of the Migration Act 1958 (cth)' 'leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment' 'privative Clause Decisions' 'validity of Commonwealth Legislation' 'costs']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'federal Jurisdiction' 'constitutional Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['ministerial Intervention Under S 351 of the Migration Act 1958 (cth)' 'federal Court Jurisdiction Under S 476 a of the Migration Act 1958 (cth)' 'leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment' 'privative Clause Decisions' 'validity of Commonwealth Legislation' 'costs']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Judgment Dismissing an Application as Incompetent in a Migration Matter / Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to appeal from the interlocutory judgment dismissing the proceeding for want of jurisdiction.' "Whether s 476A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) excluded the Federal Court's original jurisdiction in relation to the appellant's proposed challenge concerning a request for ministerial intervention under s 351." 'Whether the Australian Courts Act 1828 (UK), s 22 could affect the validity of s 476A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).' "Whether ss 268.10, 268.11, 268.12 and 268.13 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) assisted the appellant's case." 'Whether costs should be ordered against the appellant.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because there was no sufficient doubt about the correctness of the primary judge's conclusion that s 476A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) excluded the Federal Court's jurisdiction over the appellant's proceeding, and no substantial injustice would follow if leave were refused. The appellant's arguments based on the Australian Courts Act 1828 (UK) and the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) had no prospect of undermining the validity or operation of s 476A or otherwise establishing jurisdiction, and the Minister's s 351 power was personal and attended by no duty to consider exercising it.

Court Disposition

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed, with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the respondent's costs of the application."]