Mentink v Queensland Police Commissioner [2020] FCA 377

Mentink v Queensland Police Commissioner [2020] FCA 377

The application against the second respondent (Australian Federal Police Commissioner) has no reasonable prospect of success because he is not the competent authority in relation to the present decision (refusal of permission to travel) and there is no justiciable controversy involving him in these proceedings. Therefore, the application against the second respondent is dismissed, and he is removed as a party.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Summary Dismissal Application (re: Second Respondent)
Outcome
Application as against the second respondent summarily dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the second respondent’s costs; proceedings to continue only between the applicant and the first respondent.
Legal Topics
['competent Authority for Overseas Travel Under S 271 A.1 Criminal Code (cth)' 'judicial Review of Refusal of Permission to Travel' 'removal of Unnecessary Party']
['criminal Law' 'administrative Law'] ['competent Authority for Overseas Travel Under S 271 A.1 Criminal Code (cth)' 'judicial Review of Refusal of Permission to Travel' 'removal of Unnecessary Party']

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

Judicial Review / Summary Dismissal Application (re: Second Respondent)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the application against the Australian Federal Police Commissioner had no reasonable prospect of success' 'Whether the Australian Federal Police Commissioner is a necessary party to the present application']

Ratio Decidendi

The application against the second respondent (Australian Federal Police Commissioner) has no reasonable prospect of success because he is not the competent authority in relation to the present decision (refusal of permission to travel) and there is no justiciable controversy involving him in these proceedings. Therefore, the application against the second respondent is dismissed, and he is removed as a party.

Court Disposition

Application as against the second respondent summarily dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the second respondent’s costs; proceedings to continue only between the applicant and the first respondent.

Orders

  • ['As against the second respondent, the application be dismissed.' 'All further proceedings in this matter be as between the applicant and the first respondent, with the second respondent being removed as a party.' "The applicant pay the second respondent's costs, of and incidental to the proceedings, including the...