Bernard v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2020] FCA 109

Bernard v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2020] FCA 109

The renewed interlocutory application for an injunction restraining removal was dismissed because there was no new evidence or exceptional change in circumstances since the previous dismissal; the difficulties raised were foreseeable and could have been addressed earlier. The application represented an abuse of process and did not satisfy principles justifying reconsideration.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time and Interlocutory Injunction in Judicial Review / Interlocutory Application Dismissed
Outcome
Interlocutory application dismissed as abuse of process; costs awarded to respondent
Legal Topics
['extension of Time for Judicial Review' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'abuse of Process']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['extension of Time for Judicial Review' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'abuse of Process']

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 Extension of Time and Interlocutory Injunction in Judicial Review / Interlocutory Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it is appropriate to entertain a second interlocutory application for an injunction restraining removal after a previous dismissal' 'Whether there is new material, material change in circumstances, or exceptional circumstances warranting reconsideration' 'Balance of convenience and prejudice in granting interim relief']

Ratio Decidendi

The renewed interlocutory application for an injunction restraining removal was dismissed because there was no new evidence or exceptional change in circumstances since the previous dismissal; the difficulties raised were foreseeable and could have been addressed earlier. The application represented an abuse of process and did not satisfy principles justifying reconsideration.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application dismissed as abuse of process; costs awarded to respondent

Orders

  • ['The interlocutory application dated 7 February 2020 is dismissed.' "The applicant must pay the first respondent's costs of the interlocutory application to be assessed if not agreed."]