SZVCK v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 77

SZVCK v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 77

The applicant was absent when the applications for extension of time and leave to appeal were called on for hearing, despite evidence that notice of the hearing and potential consequences of non-attendance had been given. The Court therefore dismissed the application pursuant to r 35.33(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) and ordered the applicant to pay the First Respondent's costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal and Extension of Time to Seek Leave to Appeal From Orders of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Dismissing a Judicial Review Proceeding Concerning Refusal of a Protection (class Xa) Visa / Hearing of Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal; Application Dismissed for Non Appearance
Outcome
Application dismissed pursuant to r 35.33(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), with the applicant to pay the First Respondent's costs as agreed or taxed.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'non Appearance at Hearing' 'judicial Review' 'protection Visa']
['administrative Law' 'migration Law' 'federal Civil Procedure'] ['leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'non Appearance at Hearing' 'judicial Review' 'protection Visa']

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 and Extension of Time to Seek Leave to Appeal From Orders of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Dismissing a Judicial Review Proceeding Concerning Refusal of a Protection (class Xa) Visa / Hearing of Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal; Application Dismissed for Non Appearance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the application should be dismissed when the applicant was absent when the applications under rr 35.12 and 35.14 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) were called on for hearing' 'Whether an extension of time to seek leave to appeal should be granted' "Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the Federal Circuit Court's interlocutory dismissal of the judicial review proceeding"]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was absent when the applications for extension of time and leave to appeal were called on for hearing, despite evidence that notice of the hearing and potential consequences of non-attendance had been given. The Court therefore dismissed the application pursuant to r 35.33(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) and ordered the applicant to pay the First Respondent's costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed pursuant to r 35.33(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), with the applicant to pay the First Respondent's costs as agreed or taxed.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed pursuant to r 35.33(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).' 'The applicant pay the costs of the first respondent, as agreed or taxed.']