NALZ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 754

NALZ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 754

No case was made for an adjournment because the applicant had had many months since the Refugee Review Tribunal decision, and a much greater time before that, to organise legal advice if able to do so, and he was not willing to participate in the court legal advice scheme.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of the Decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal / Motion for Adjournment
Outcome
Motion dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'adjournment' 'costs']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'federal Court Procedure'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'adjournment' '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 Review of the Decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal / Motion for Adjournment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the hearing should be adjourned from 1 August 2003 to allow the applicant time to organise funds to retain a lawyer.']

Ratio Decidendi

No case was made for an adjournment because the applicant had had many months since the Refugee Review Tribunal decision, and a much greater time before that, to organise legal advice if able to do so, and he was not willing to participate in the court legal advice scheme.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The motion be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the motion."]