Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v MB [2021] FCAFC 194

Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v MB [2021] FCAFC 194

Leave to appeal (and extension of time) from the costs order was refused because the applicants did not demonstrate an arguable error of law, fact, or principle by the primary judge; costs decisions are discretionary and this case raised no substantial injustice or sufficient reason to depart from the usual reluctance to grant leave; the proposed fresh evidence did not meet the threshold for admission and would not have changed the result.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal From Costs Order (interlocutory) / Appellate (full Federal Court) – Decision on Leave and Extension of Time
Outcome
Applications dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'costs Orders' 'discretionary Decisions' 'habeas Corpus Applications']
['practice and Procedure' 'administrative Law'] ['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'costs Orders' 'discretionary Decisions' 'habeas Corpus Applications']

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 Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal From Costs Order (interlocutory) / Appellate (full Federal Court) – Decision on Leave and Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal from a discretionary costs order should be granted' 'Whether there was error in the primary judge’s approach to the application of the Cabal principle as to costs in habeas corpus cases' 'Whether the primary judge proceeded on a mistake of fact, took into account irrelevant considerations, or incorrectly applied relevant authority' 'Whether fresh evidence should be admitted on appeal']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal (and extension of time) from the costs order was refused because the applicants did not demonstrate an arguable error of law, fact, or principle by the primary judge; costs decisions are discretionary and this case raised no substantial injustice or sufficient reason to depart from the usual reluctance to grant leave; the proposed fresh evidence did not meet the threshold for admission and would not have changed the result.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed with costs

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time and leave to appeal filed on 15 June 2021 be dismissed.' 'The interlocutory application filed on 15 June 2021 be dismissed.' "The applicants pay the respondent's costs of the application and interlocutory application as agreed or taxed."]