Tang v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1274

Tang v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1274

The adjournment was refused because the applicant was on notice of the hearing, failed to attend in person or by telephone, relied on a medical certificate that did not identify the medical condition or explain why it prevented attendance, and had previously relied on similarly inadequate certificates. The application for an extension of time and leave to appeal was dismissed under r 35.33(1)(i) because the applicant was absent when it was called on and the proposed appeal lacked apparent merit: the Federal Circuit Court's refusal of an adjournment and dismissal for non-appearance disclosed no House v The King error, and procedural fairness did not require the Court to contact the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for an Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Federal Court Application From an Interlocutory Judgment of the Federal Circuit Court Dismissing a Judicial Review Application for Non Appearance
Outcome
Application for adjournment refused; application for an extension of time and leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'adjournment' 'procedural Fairness' 'dismissal for Non Appearance' 'partner Visa']
['administrative Law' 'migration Law' 'federal Civil Procedure'] ['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'adjournment' 'procedural Fairness' 'dismissal for Non Appearance' 'partner Visa']

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 an Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Federal Court Application From an Interlocutory Judgment of the Federal Circuit Court Dismissing a Judicial Review Application for Non Appearance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's adjournment request supported by a medical certificate should be granted" 'Whether the application should be dismissed under r 35.33(1)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) because the applicant was absent when it was called on for hearing' 'Whether an extension of time and leave to appeal should be granted' "Whether the proposed appeal from the Federal Circuit Court's refusal of an adjournment and dismissal under r 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) had merit" 'Whether the applicant was denied procedural fairness because the Court did not contact her or her doctor for further details of her medical condition']

Ratio Decidendi

The adjournment was refused because the applicant was on notice of the hearing, failed to attend in person or by telephone, relied on a medical certificate that did not identify the medical condition or explain why it prevented attendance, and had previously relied on similarly inadequate certificates. The application for an extension of time and leave to appeal was dismissed under r 35.33(1)(i) because the applicant was absent when it was called on and the proposed appeal lacked apparent merit: the Federal Circuit Court's refusal of an adjournment and dismissal for non-appearance disclosed no House v The King error, and procedural fairness did not require the Court to contact the...

Court Disposition

Application for adjournment refused; application for an extension of time and leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's application for an adjournment be refused." 'The application for an extension of time and leave to appeal be dismissed under r 35.33(1)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).' "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the application, fixed in the sum of $1756."]