SBKC v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1906

SBKC v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1906

Leave to appeal was refused because the orders appealed from were not attended by sufficient doubt and refusal of leave would not cause substantial injustice. The summary dismissal was unexceptionable: the Tribunal was obliged to decide the review on facts as at its determination date, and the complaint about failure to disclose information was an abuse of process because it had already been ventilated and rejected in earlier proceedings. The refusal of an adjournment disclosed no discernable error.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal in Migration Judicial Review Proceeding / Leave to Appeal From Judgment of Mansfield J Refusing an Adjournment and Summarily Dismissing the Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused; applicant ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the application.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'jurisdictional Error' 'leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Decision' 'summary Dismissal' 'adjournment' 'abuse of Process']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'jurisdictional Error' 'leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Decision' 'summary Dismissal' 'adjournment' '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 Leave to Appeal in Migration Judicial Review Proceeding / Leave to Appeal From Judgment of Mansfield J Refusing an Adjournment and Summarily Dismissing the Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave should be granted to appeal from Mansfield J's orders refusing an adjournment and summarily dismissing the application." 'Whether the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error by considering information about Nigeria arising after the protection visa application date.' 'Whether the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error by not informing the applicant that it proposed to have regard to that information.' 'Whether refusal of the adjournment disclosed appealable error.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the orders appealed from were not attended by sufficient doubt and refusal of leave would not cause substantial injustice. The summary dismissal was unexceptionable: the Tribunal was obliged to decide the review on facts as at its determination date, and the complaint about failure to disclose information was an abuse of process because it had already been ventilated and rejected in earlier proceedings. The refusal of an adjournment disclosed no discernable error.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused; applicant ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the application.

Orders

  • ['The applicant be refused leave to appeal from a judgment of Mansfield J on 30 September 2005.' "The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application."]