NAXN v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 162

NAXN v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 162

Because the applicants indicated that no constitutional question was to be taken and the Court had dealt with all relevant matters and arguments, the application was dismissed. Costs were ordered against the first and second applicants only because the applicants were a family and the Court did not propose to make a costs order against the children.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Application for Relief Under S 39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) in Respect of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of Protection Visas / Final Judgment and Orders
Outcome
Application dismissed; first and second applicants to pay the respondent's costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visas' 'refugee Review Tribunal Decision' 'judiciary Act 1903 (cth) S 39 B Relief' 'constitutional Question' 'costs']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'constitutional Law'] ['protection Visas' 'refugee Review Tribunal Decision' 'judiciary Act 1903 (cth) S 39 B Relief' 'constitutional Question' '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

Application for Relief Under S 39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) in Respect of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of Protection Visas / Final Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether any question arising under or involving the interpretation of the Constitution remained to be determined.' 'Whether the application for relief under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) should be dismissed after all arguments had been dealt with.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the applicants indicated that no constitutional question was to be taken and the Court had dealt with all relevant matters and arguments, the application was dismissed. Costs were ordered against the first and second applicants only because the applicants were a family and the Court did not propose to make a costs order against the children.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; first and second applicants to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' "The first and second applicants pay the respondent's costs."]