SZUOL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 179

SZUOL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 179

The applicant may have a reasonably arguable ground of appeal depending on the High Court's outcome in SZTAL, and given the short delay and satisfactory explanation, the extension of time to appeal is allowed. Pragmatically, the extension is preferable to serial adjournments.

Parties
Applicant: SZUOL; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Border Protection; Second Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Extension of Time and Adjournment Application Determined Prior to Hearing of Substantive Appeal
Outcome
Extension of time to appeal allowed; appeal to be heard after the High Court's decision in SZTAL; costs of interlocutory applications be costs in the cause on the appeal.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time to Appeal, Adjournment Application, Jurisdictional Error, Construction of Migration Act Provisions
Administrative Law Migration Law Extension of Time to Appeal Adjournment Application Jurisdictional Error Construction of Migration Act Provisions

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SZUOL

Applicant

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

First Respondent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Extension of Time and Adjournment Application Determined Prior to Hearing of Substantive Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extension of time to appeal should be granted
  2. 2 Whether appeal should be adjourned until after the High Court's decision in SZTAL
  3. 3 Whether proposed ground of appeal is reasonably arguable in light of pending High Court appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant may have a reasonably arguable ground of appeal depending on the High Court's outcome in SZTAL, and given the short delay and satisfactory explanation, the extension of time to appeal is allowed. Pragmatically, the extension is preferable to serial adjournments.

Court Disposition

Extension of time to appeal allowed; appeal to be heard after the High Court's decision in SZTAL; costs of interlocutory applications be costs in the cause on the appeal.

Orders

  • The time within which the applicant may commence an appeal in this Court against the decision in SZUOL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCCA 1983 is extended to 1 March 2017.
  • The appeal be heard at a date and time to be fixed by the Court but after the delivery of the decision by the High Court of Australia in the appeal from the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 69.