S372 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1785

S372 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1785

The applicant provided no particulars or substantive basis for the proposed constitutional writ relief. His new declaration indicated that the claims advanced before the delegate and the Tribunal were false and that there could be no complaint about their procedures. Because the complaints in the draft order nisi had no substance, there was no utility in listing the matter for hearing and the application for an order nisi was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 August 2004
Procedural Posture
Application for an Order Nisi Seeking Constitutional Writ Relief in Relation to Protection Visa Decisions / Application Remitted From the High Court of Australia to the Federal Court of Australia; Directions/hearing on Whether to Grant an Order Nisi
Outcome
Application for an order nisi refused; applicant ordered to pay the costs of the first respondent.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal Review' 'constitutional Writ Relief' 'certiorari and Mandamus' 'jurisdictional Error' 'natural Justice' 'procedural Fairness']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal Review' 'constitutional Writ Relief' 'certiorari and Mandamus' 'jurisdictional Error' 'natural Justice' 'procedural Fairness']

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
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for an Order Nisi Seeking Constitutional Writ Relief in Relation to Protection Visa Decisions / Application Remitted From the High Court of Australia to the Federal Court of Australia; Directions/hearing on Whether to Grant an Order Nisi

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether an order nisi should issue for certiorari and mandamus in respect of the delegate's decision refusing a protection visa and the Refugee Review Tribunal's decision affirming that refusal." 'Whether the asserted grounds of procedural error, jurisdictional error, error of law, absence of evidence and denial of natural justice had any substance.' "Whether the applicant's further declaration provided any basis for relief or instead demonstrated that the claims before the delegate and Tribunal were false."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant provided no particulars or substantive basis for the proposed constitutional writ relief. His new declaration indicated that the claims advanced before the delegate and the Tribunal were false and that there could be no complaint about their procedures. Because the complaints in the draft order nisi had no substance, there was no utility in listing the matter for hearing and the application for an order nisi was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for an order nisi refused; applicant ordered to pay the costs of the first respondent.

Orders

  • ['Order 51A r 5(1) of the Federal Court Rules not apply to the proceeding.' 'The application for an order nisi be refused.' 'The applicant pay the costs of the first respondent.']