Makarov v Minister for Home Affairs [2021] FCAFC 129

Makarov v Minister for Home Affairs [2021] FCAFC 129

The appeal failed because the primary judge’s factual and discretionary findings regarding the appellant’s delay, the effect and relevance of evidentiary limitations, and the adequacy of the Minister’s consideration of statelessness were not shown to involve any error of principle or failure to consider relevant matters. The limitation imposed on expert evidence was properly within judicial discretion under s 136 of the Evidence Act. The Minister's consideration of the risk of statelessness, on the available material and submissions, was adequate and not an abdication of statutory responsibility. The Minister’s notice of contention was upheld as the material before the Minister showed...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment After Full Federal Court Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; respondents' notice of contention upheld; costs ordered against appellant.
Legal Topics
['revocation of Australian Citizenship' 'judicial Review' 'exercise of Discretion' 'evidentiary Limitations' 'delay' 'statelessness' 'ministerial Decision Making']
['administrative Law'] ['revocation of Australian Citizenship' 'judicial Review' 'exercise of Discretion' 'evidentiary Limitations' 'delay' 'statelessness' 'ministerial 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

Appeal / Judgment After Full Federal Court Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge erred in finding the appellant had not given certain evidence regarding inquiries into Ukrainian citizenship status' 'Whether the primary judge erred in refusing relief for delay and the manner in which the discretion was exercised' 'Whether an order under s 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) limiting use of expert reports was erroneous' 'Whether the Minister gave active intellectual consideration to the risk of statelessness']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the primary judge’s factual and discretionary findings regarding the appellant’s delay, the effect and relevance of evidentiary limitations, and the adequacy of the Minister’s consideration of statelessness were not shown to involve any error of principle or failure to consider relevant matters. The limitation imposed on expert evidence was properly within judicial discretion under s 136 of the Evidence Act. The Minister's consideration of the risk of statelessness, on the available material and submissions, was adequate and not an abdication of statutory responsibility. The Minister’s notice of contention was upheld as the material before the Minister showed...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; respondents' notice of contention upheld; costs ordered against appellant.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' "The respondents' notice of contention is upheld." "The appellant will pay the respondents' costs, to be taxed if not agreed."]