BZAE v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 390

BZAE v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 390

The applicants gave no explanation for filing the application for leave to appeal out of time, and the proposed appeal had no prospects because the proceeding before Federal Magistrate Jarrett was a third attempt to review the same Tribunal decision and was properly summarily dismissed as res judicata. The absence of any identified error or doubt in the Federal Magistrate's judgment meant there was no basis to grant an extension of time or leave to appeal. Indemnity costs fixed at $3000 were appropriate because the respondent had been put to unnecessary litigation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Migration Judicial Review / Protection Visa Proceedings / Application for Extension of Time to File and Serve an Application for Leave to Appeal, and Application for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Judgment
Outcome
The application for extension of time was refused, the application for leave to appeal was refused, and the applicants were ordered to pay the respondent's indemnity costs fixed at $3000.
Legal Topics
['protection Visas' 'refugee Review Tribunal Review' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Judgment' 'res Judicata' 'indemnity Costs']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['protection Visas' 'refugee Review Tribunal Review' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Judgment' 'res Judicata' 'indemnity Costs']

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 Judicial Review / Protection Visa Proceedings / Application for Extension of Time to File and Serve an Application for Leave to Appeal, and Application for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants should be granted an extension of time to file and serve an application for leave to appeal from the interlocutory judgment of Federal Magistrate Jarrett.' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted where the Federal Magistrates Court proceeding was summarily dismissed as res judicata.' "Whether the applicants should pay the respondent's costs on an indemnity basis fixed as a gross sum."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants gave no explanation for filing the application for leave to appeal out of time, and the proposed appeal had no prospects because the proceeding before Federal Magistrate Jarrett was a third attempt to review the same Tribunal decision and was properly summarily dismissed as res judicata. The absence of any identified error or doubt in the Federal Magistrate's judgment meant there was no basis to grant an extension of time or leave to appeal. Indemnity costs fixed at $3000 were appropriate because the respondent had been put to unnecessary litigation.

Court Disposition

The application for extension of time was refused, the application for leave to appeal was refused, and the applicants were ordered to pay the respondent's indemnity costs fixed at $3000.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time in which to file and serve an application for leave to appeal is refused.' 'The application for leave to appeal is refused.' 'The applicants pay the costs of the respondent on an indemnity basis, fixed in the sum of $3000.']