Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 199

Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 199

The applicant's grounds for leave to appeal the interlocutory order were without substance; directions given were matters of discretion relating to practice and procedure, no prejudice, legal rights deprivation, or evidence of bias was established; leave to appeal was refused and the motion dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Olga Dranichnikov; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Second Respondent: Ms Ryneete Gault; Third Respondent: Mr Kevin Duffy
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Motion for Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Order
Outcome
motion dismissed
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Interlocutory Decision, Practice and Procedure, Bias, Protection Visa
Administrative Law Immigration Law Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Decision Practice and Procedure Bias Protection 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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Olga Dranichnikov

Applicant

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

First Respondent

Ms Ryneete Gault

Second Respondent

Mr Kevin Duffy

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Motion for Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted in relation to an interlocutory direction of practice and procedure.
  2. 2 Whether the listing of the applicant's appeal for the May sittings deprived her of legal rights or prejudiced her.
  3. 3 Whether allegations of bias against the callover judge were substantiated.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's grounds for leave to appeal the interlocutory order were without substance; directions given were matters of discretion relating to practice and procedure, no prejudice, legal rights deprivation, or evidence of bias was established; leave to appeal was refused and the motion dismissed.

Court Disposition

motion dismissed

Orders

  • The applicant's notice of motion filed on 23 February 2001 be dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of and incidental to today's hearing of the notice of motion filed 23 February 2001.