Gundarania v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 136

Gundarania v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 136

The application for extension of time and leave to appeal was dismissed because the proposed grounds did not demonstrate any reasonable prospect of success, failed to identify errors by the primary judge, and did not raise sufficient doubt regarding the correctness of the primary decision. There was also no substantial injustice to the applicant if leave was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Final Determination of Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'judicial Review' 'student Visa' 'jurisdictional Error']

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 and Leave to Appeal / Final Determination of Interlocutory Application

  1. 1 ['Whether extension of time to file appeal should be granted' 'Whether leave to appeal interlocutory decision should be granted' 'Whether proposed grounds of appeal demonstrate reasonable prospect of success' 'Whether primary judge erred in dismissing the judicial review application']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time and leave to appeal was dismissed because the proposed grounds did not demonstrate any reasonable prospect of success, failed to identify errors by the primary judge, and did not raise sufficient doubt regarding the correctness of the primary decision. There was also no substantial injustice to the applicant if leave was refused.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ["The applicant's application for extension of time and leave to appeal dated 26 September 2017 is dismissed." "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the application."]