S1053 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2005] FCA 1444
On the material before the Court, there is no evidence that the Tribunal considered submissions made pursuant to s 423(2) of the Act or denied the applicant procedural fairness; therefore, no arguable case of jurisdictional error was established and the application for order nisi should be dismissed.
- Parties
- Applicant: S1053 of 2003; First Respondent: Refugee Review Tribunal; Second Respondent: Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 20 October 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Application for Order Nisi Considered and Dismissed on Remittal From the High Court
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Protection Visa, Jurisdictional Error, Procedural Fairness
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
S1053 of 2003
Applicant
Refugee Review Tribunal
First Respondent
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
Second Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Order Nisi Considered and Dismissed on Remittal From the High Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Tribunal considered adverse written submissions without providing the applicant an opportunity to comment
- 2 Whether procedural fairness was denied to the applicant
- 3 Whether jurisdictional error was committed by the Tribunal
Ratio Decidendi
On the material before the Court, there is no evidence that the Tribunal considered submissions made pursuant to s 423(2) of the Act or denied the applicant procedural fairness; therefore, no arguable case of jurisdictional error was established and the application for order nisi should be dismissed.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- The application for an order nisi be dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment