M1027/03 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2004] FCA 733

M1027/03 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2004] FCA 733

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any document falling within either limb of Muin, showed no reasonable prospects of success in the substantive application for mandamus or certiorari, and did not show that Heerey J's interlocutory decision was attended with sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Migration Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Order Refusing an Order Nisi on an Application for Prerogative Writs
Outcome
Application dismissed; leave to appeal refused, with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'procedural Fairness' 'prerogative Writs' 'leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Order' 'extension of Time']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'procedural Fairness' 'prerogative Writs' 'leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Order' 'extension of Time']

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 Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Order Refusing an Order Nisi on an Application for Prerogative Writs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave should be granted to appeal from Heerey J's refusal to grant an order nisi for prerogative writs." 'Whether the applicant identified a procedural fairness error within the principle in Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal.' 'Whether the interlocutory decision was attended with sufficient doubt and whether substantial injustice would result if leave were refused.' 'Whether the applicant had reasonable prospects of success and should receive an extension of time.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any document falling within either limb of Muin, showed no reasonable prospects of success in the substantive application for mandamus or certiorari, and did not show that Heerey J's interlocutory decision was attended with sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; leave to appeal refused, with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the respondents' costs of the application, to be taxed in default of agreement."]