Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 489

The appeals should be dismissed under r 36.75 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) because the appellants failed to appear without explanation and had departed Australia.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 20 May 2015
Procedural Posture: Appeal / Hearing and Dismissal on Non Appearance
Outcome: Appeals dismissed for non-appearance under r 36.75 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)
Legal Topics: ['dismissal for Non Appearance' 'appeal Procedure' 'judicial Review of Migration Decisions']

['administrative Law' 'immigration Law'] ['dismissal for Non Appearance' 'appeal Procedure' 'judicial Review of Migration Decisions']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Hearing and Dismissal on Non Appearance

Legal Issues

1 ['Should the appeals be dismissed in the absence of the appellants under r 36.75 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)?']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals should be dismissed under r 36.75 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) because the appellants failed to appear without explanation and had departed Australia.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed for non-appearance under r 36.75 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)

Orders

['The appeals are dismissed pursuant to Rule 36.75 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).' "In the appeal involving Ms Ranjit Kaur, the appellant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the amount of $6,439."]