Bernard v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (No 3) [2020] FCA 319

Bernard v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (No 3) [2020] FCA 319

The extension of time was refused because the delay of about two and a half years was not adequately explained and, on a rough and ready assessment, the proposed grounds of review lacked sufficient merit. The Tribunal had considered the applicant's daughter's best interests and the alleged failures, illogicality and factual complaints did not disclose sufficiently arguable jurisdictional error. The Court was not satisfied that an extension was necessary in the interests of the administration of justice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for an Extension of Time to Seek Judicial Review of a Decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal / Application Dismissed
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'jurisdictional Error' 'visa Cancellation' 'character Test' 'best Interests of a Child' 'delay' 'merits of Proposed Grounds']
['migration' 'administrative Law' 'judicial Review'] ['extension of Time' 'jurisdictional Error' 'visa Cancellation' 'character Test' 'best Interests of a Child' 'delay' 'merits of Proposed Grounds']

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 to Seek Judicial Review of a Decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal / Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time should be extended under s 477A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to seek judicial review of the First Tribunal Decision.' "Whether the applicant's delay of about two and a half years was adequately explained." 'Whether the proposed grounds alleging jurisdictional error had sufficient prospects of success to justify an extension of time.' "Whether the Tribunal failed to take into account, or illogically assessed, matters concerning the applicant's daughter and her best interests."]

Ratio Decidendi

The extension of time was refused because the delay of about two and a half years was not adequately explained and, on a rough and ready assessment, the proposed grounds of review lacked sufficient merit. The Tribunal had considered the applicant's daughter's best interests and the alleged failures, illogicality and factual complaints did not disclose sufficiently arguable jurisdictional error. The Court was not satisfied that an extension was necessary in the interests of the administration of justice.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' "The applicant do pay the first respondent's costs to be fixed by way of a lump sum if not agreed." "If it is necessary to fix costs then the first respondent may file and serve an affidavit constituting a Costs Summary in accordance with the Court's Cost Practice Note (GPN-COSTS)."...