Adnan v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs 6[2004] FCA 409

Adnan v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs 6[2004] FCA 409

The further adjournment was refused because there was no supporting material apart from a recent change of solicitors, the applicants had persistently failed to comply with directions to file any motion for an extension of time, there was no explanation for the delay, and there was no apparent basis on which the Tribunal's decision involved jurisdictional error. In the absence of any motion for an extension of time, the claims for certiorari and mandamus were out of time, and there was no point in pursuing prohibition, so the application was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Application for Mandamus, Prohibition and Certiorari in Respect of a Tribunal Decision / Federal Court Hearing After Remittal From the High Court; Application Dismissed After Refusal of Further Adjournment and Absence of Motion for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review of Migration Decision' 'extension of Time' 'jurisdictional Error' 'natural Justice' 'family Visa Criteria']
['immigration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['judicial Review of Migration Decision' 'extension of Time' 'jurisdictional Error' 'natural Justice' 'family Visa Criteria']

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 Mandamus, Prohibition and Certiorari in Respect of a Tribunal Decision / Federal Court Hearing After Remittal From the High Court; Application Dismissed After Refusal of Further Adjournment and Absence of Motion for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a further adjournment should be granted to allow an application for an extension of time.' 'Whether the claims for certiorari and mandamus were out of time under the High Court Rules 1952 (Cth).' "Whether there was any apparent basis for jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision affirming refusal of a Change in Circumstance (Residence) (Class AG) subclass 806 Family Visa." 'Whether prohibition should be pursued in the circumstances.']

Ratio Decidendi

The further adjournment was refused because there was no supporting material apart from a recent change of solicitors, the applicants had persistently failed to comply with directions to file any motion for an extension of time, there was no explanation for the delay, and there was no apparent basis on which the Tribunal's decision involved jurisdictional error. In the absence of any motion for an extension of time, the claims for certiorari and mandamus were out of time, and there was no point in pursuing prohibition, so the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.' 'Applicants to pay to the first respondent costs of the application.' 'No order for costs of the second and third respondents.']