VOAQ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1505

VOAQ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1505

The preferable course is to pursue the Order 16 rule 5 application in the Federal Magistrates Court; leave to review the Registrar’s decision is not granted as this Court may lack jurisdiction over appeals against such orders, and the respondent’s suggestion to apply in the original court is sound.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Review Decision / Judgment on Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Review Registrar's Decision
Outcome
Application for extension of time granted; application for leave to review Registrar’s decision dismissed; applicant ordered to pay respondent’s costs.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'leave to Review Registrar’s Decision' 'interlocutory Orders' 'dismissal for Non‑appearance']
['administrative Law' 'immigration Law'] ['extension of Time' 'leave to Review Registrar’s Decision' 'interlocutory Orders' 'dismissal for Non‑appearance']

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 Review Decision / Judgment on Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Review Registrar's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether applicant should be granted extension of time to file notice of motion to review Registrar's decision" "Whether leave should be granted to review Registrar's interlocutory order" 'Jurisdiction of the Court regarding appeal from interlocutory order by Federal Magistrates Court']

Ratio Decidendi

The preferable course is to pursue the Order 16 rule 5 application in the Federal Magistrates Court; leave to review the Registrar’s decision is not granted as this Court may lack jurisdiction over appeals against such orders, and the respondent’s suggestion to apply in the original court is sound.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time granted; application for leave to review Registrar’s decision dismissed; applicant ordered to pay respondent’s costs.

Orders

  • ['The time within which the applicant may file the notice of motion purportedly filed on 27 June 2005 be extended to 27 June 2005 and the notice of motion be deemed to have been filed on that date.' "The applicant's motion notice of which is deemed to have been filed on 27 June 2005 be dismissed." "The applicant pay...