ADN18 v Minister for Home Affairs

The applicant, ADN18, sought judicial review of a decision by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, which had dismissed the applicant’s application for an extension of time under section 477 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The dispute centred on the refusal of the Federal Circuit Court to grant the applicant an extension of time to raise a claim for protection (the claim), which the Immigration Assessment Authority had found was not raised before the delegate and was therefore considered "new information" under sections 473DC and 473DD of the Migration Act. The applicant argued that the primary judge erred in not properly considering the proposed grounds of review and in concluding that the proposed grounds did not have arguable merit.

The court was required to determine whether the primary judge committed a jurisdictional error by failing to adequately assess the proposed grounds of review, and if the primary judge’s assessment of the arguable merit of the proposed grounds was inconsistent with established legal principles. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether it is a mandatory relevant consideration for the primary judge to evaluate the strength of the proposed grounds of review in the context of a section 477 application.

The court held that the application for judicial review should be dismissed. The court found that the primary judge did not commit a jurisdictional error by not properly considering the proposed grounds of review. Furthermore, the court concluded that the primary judge’s assessment of the arguable merit of the proposed grounds was not unreasonable and aligned with established legal principles. Consequently, the court determined that the primary judge’s evaluation of the strength of the proposed grounds was not a mandatory relevant consideration in this context.

The court dismissed the originating application filed on 26 June 2018 and ordered that the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs, as agreed or assessed. The entry of orders is governed by Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.