NATE v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1000

NATE v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1000

The adjournment was refused because the applicant provided no affidavit, could not identify the asserted arguable point, had previously had access to legal advice, and relied partly on further evidence that was not of itself a ground for judicial review. The substantive application was dismissed because the Tribunal rejected the central aspects of the applicant's claims and no reviewable error was established.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 September 2003
Procedural Posture
Application for Prerogative Relief Under S 39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) in Respect of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of a Protection Visa / Hearing of Adjournment Application and Substantive Application
Outcome
Application dismissed; applicant to pay the respondent's costs; entry of orders delayed until Tuesday, 21 October 2003.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'judicial Review' 'adjournment' 'credibility Findings']
['administrative Law' 'migration Law'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'judicial Review' 'adjournment' 'credibility Findings']

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 Prerogative Relief Under S 39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) in Respect of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of a Protection Visa / Hearing of Adjournment Application and Substantive Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the hearing should be adjourned because the applicant's solicitor had only just received instructions, counsel was unavailable, and there was said to be an arguable point." "Whether the Court should grant prerogative relief in respect of the Tribunal's decision affirming refusal of a protection visa."]

Ratio Decidendi

The adjournment was refused because the applicant provided no affidavit, could not identify the asserted arguable point, had previously had access to legal advice, and relied partly on further evidence that was not of itself a ground for judicial review. The substantive application was dismissed because the Tribunal rejected the central aspects of the applicant's claims and no reviewable error was established.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; applicant to pay the respondent's costs; entry of orders delayed until Tuesday, 21 October 2003.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the respondent's costs." 'The respondent not enter orders 1 and 2 until Tuesday, 21 October 2003.']