MZZES v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (No 2) [2015] FCA 482
To avoid any risk of the appellant being identified, the information in paragraphs [8] and [9] will be removed from the published version of the judgment and any original copies are to be returned to the Court.
- Parties
- Appellant: MZZES; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Border Protection; Second Respondent: Refugee Review Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 18 May 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Post Judgment/redaction Orders
- Outcome
- Redaction order granted
- Legal Topics
- Publication of Judgments, Non Publication/redaction Orders, Immigration Law Procedure
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
MZZES
Appellant
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection
First Respondent
Refugee Review Tribunal
Second Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Post Judgment/redaction Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether paragraphs [8] and [9] of the published judgment should be redacted to prevent identification of the appellant
Ratio Decidendi
To avoid any risk of the appellant being identified, the information in paragraphs [8] and [9] will be removed from the published version of the judgment and any original copies are to be returned to the Court.
Court Disposition
Redaction order granted
Orders
- The original form of paragraphs [8] and [9] in the reasons for judgment be redacted in the form of Schedule A to these orders. The redacted form of the reasons for judgment shall be the published form.
- The original copies of the judgment that were handed down in Court on 29 April 2015, and any subsequent copies of the original form of judgment in the possession of the parties, be returned to the Court by Wednesday 27 May 2015.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment