SZTLU v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 147

SZTLU v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 147

The applicant did not point to any reasonably arguable error in the Federal Circuit Court decision and therefore did not show prejudice if the extension of time was refused; accordingly the discretion to extend time should not be exercised in his favour.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Determination of Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'judicial Review of Migration Decisions' 'complementary Protection' 'procedural Fairness']
['administrative Law' 'migration Law'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'judicial Review of Migration Decisions' 'complementary Protection' '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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Determination of Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant identified a reasonably arguable error in the Federal Circuit Court decision' 'Whether there was sufficient merit to warrant an extension of time to appeal' 'Whether the applicant would be prejudiced by refusal of extension']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not point to any reasonably arguable error in the Federal Circuit Court decision and therefore did not show prejudice if the extension of time was refused; accordingly the discretion to extend time should not be exercised in his favour.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time within which to appeal is refused.' 'The Applicant is to pay the costs of the First Respondent fixed in the sum of $2000.']