Dhingra v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 719

Dhingra v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 719

The application for extension of time was dismissed because the sole proposed ground of appeal had no prospect of success: the Federal Circuit Court transcript did not support the claim that the applicant had not received the Court Book, the Minister's affidavit evidence established that the Court Book was posted to the applicant's correct address for service, and the applicant did not contest that evidence beyond a general statement. The Court was also satisfied that the Application Book had been served and that there was no basis for an adjournment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Migration Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal From a Decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia
Outcome
Application for extension of time dismissed; oral application for adjournment refused; applicant ordered to pay the first respondent's costs.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'student Visa' 'natural Justice' 'service of Court Book' 'adjournment']
['migration' 'administrative Law'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'student Visa' 'natural Justice' 'service of Court Book' 'adjournment']

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

Migration Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal From a Decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time should be extended under r 36.05 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) to appeal from the Federal Circuit Court decision.' 'Whether the proposed appeal ground alleging denial of natural justice because the applicant was not provided with the Court Book had merit.' 'Whether the applicant should be granted an adjournment on the basis that he had not received the Application Book and wished to seek legal advice.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time was dismissed because the sole proposed ground of appeal had no prospect of success: the Federal Circuit Court transcript did not support the claim that the applicant had not received the Court Book, the Minister's affidavit evidence established that the Court Book was posted to the applicant's correct address for service, and the applicant did not contest that evidence beyond a general statement. The Court was also satisfied that the Application Book had been served and that there was no basis for an adjournment.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time dismissed; oral application for adjournment refused; applicant ordered to pay the first respondent's costs.

Orders

  • ['The oral application for adjournment be refused.' 'The application for extension of time filed on 11 December 2017 be dismissed.' 'The applicant pay the costs of the first respondent, to be taxed if not otherwise agreed.']