SZLNX v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1754

SZLNX v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1754

The lack of merit in the proposed grounds of appeal means no 'special reasons' exist to justify extension of time to appeal; allegations of denial of natural justice, bad faith, or excess of jurisdiction are unsupported; the Tribunal’s actions were open to it on the information before it; country information did not fall within s424A(1); application is dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal / Judgment on Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'judicial Review' 'natural Justice' 'tribunal Decision Making']

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 Extension of Time to File Appeal / Judgment on Application for Extension of Time

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant has 'special reasons' warranting extension of time to appeal" 'Whether the Tribunal denied the applicant procedural fairness or natural justice' 'Whether Tribunal acted in excess of jurisdiction or identified a wrong issue' 'Whether Tribunal failed to accord natural justice under s424A of Migration Act']

Ratio Decidendi

The lack of merit in the proposed grounds of appeal means no 'special reasons' exist to justify extension of time to appeal; allegations of denial of natural justice, bad faith, or excess of jurisdiction are unsupported; the Tribunal’s actions were open to it on the information before it; country information did not fall within s424A(1); application is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' 'The Applicant pay the costs of the First Respondent.']