Cockrell v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 444

Cockrell v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 444

Leave to appeal was refused because the primary judge's conclusions that the applicant's arguments had no prospects of success, were an abuse of process or were unproved were manifestly correct; there was no risk of miscarriage of justice; and the fresh proceeding and leave application were a clear abuse of process because the lawfulness of the Tribunal's determination had already been extensively litigated and no adequate special circumstance justified departure from finality of litigation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Summary Dismissal of Proceeding
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs; leave to appeal refused with costs.
Legal Topics
['visa Cancellation' 'character Test' 'administrative Appeals Tribunal Review' 'summary Dismissal' 'leave to Appeal' 'abuse of Process' 'finality of Litigation']
['administrative Law' 'immigration Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['visa Cancellation' 'character Test' 'administrative Appeals Tribunal Review' 'summary Dismissal' 'leave to Appeal' 'abuse of Process' 'finality of Litigation']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Summary Dismissal of Proceeding

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave to appeal was required from the primary judge's decision summarily dismissing the proceeding." 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted where the proposed appeal challenged a decision that had already been extensively litigated.' 'Whether the applicant showed special circumstances sufficient to avoid ordinary principles of finality of litigation.' 'Whether proposed grounds not advanced before the primary judge should be considered on appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the primary judge's conclusions that the applicant's arguments had no prospects of success, were an abuse of process or were unproved were manifestly correct; there was no risk of miscarriage of justice; and the fresh proceeding and leave application were a clear abuse of process because the lawfulness of the Tribunal's determination had already been extensively litigated and no adequate special circumstance justified departure from finality of litigation.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs; leave to appeal refused with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed with costs.']