Applicant S1366 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

Case [2004] FCA 598

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant S1366 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 598

APPLICANT S1366 of 2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

N263 of 2004

JACOBSON J
4 MAY 2004

SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 263 of 2004

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT S1366 of 2003
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

JACOBSON J

DATE OF ORDER:

4 MAY 2004

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The motion for an extension of time be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the motion as taxed or assessed or as agreed between the parties.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 263 of 2004

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT S1366 of 2003
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

JACOBSON J

DATE:

4 MAY 2004

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This one of eight motions under O 52 r 10(2)(b) of  the Federal Court Rules for an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal against the judgment of Emmett J given on 20 February 2004.  The motion was filed on 1 March 2004, slightly outside the seven day limit fixed by the rules.

  2. The relevant background to the proceedings, and the reasons why his Honour refused to make an order nisi are referred to in my judgment in Applicant S1198 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 577.

  3. The applicant has filed an affidavit in support of his application for an extension of time.  The affidavit appears to me to satisfactorily explain the short delay.  The affidavit goes on to say that his Honour did not consider all the legal factors related to the application, and that further details would be forwarded shortly. 

  4. The applicant appeared before me in person this morning.  His only submissions were that the Refugee Review Tribunal (the “RRT”) did not consider his country information and did not take the information into account. 

  5. As I said this morning, I do not sit on this application to review the merits of the decision of the RRT.  Nothing has been put to me in the affidavit or in oral submissions to suggest that there is any doubt about the correctness of his Honour's judgment.  I am satisfied that an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal would be futile because there are no prospects of success on an application for leave to appeal. 

  6. Accordingly, the order I make is that the motion for an extension of time be dismissed.  The order I will make as to costs is that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the motion as taxed or assessed or as agreed between the parties.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Jacobson.

Associate:

Date:               4 May 2004

Applicant self represented
Counsel for the Respondent: J D Harris SC
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing: 4 May 2004
Date of Judgment: 4 May 2004
Details
AGLC
Applicant S1366 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 598
Case
[2004] FCA 598
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Applicant S1366 of 2003 brought an application against the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs seeking an extension of time to lodge an application for judicial review of a decision to refuse an application for a visa. The Federal Court was required to determine whether the applicant was entitled to an extension of time and whether the court should exercise its discretion to grant an extension.

The court considered whether the applicant had a valid reason for the delay in lodging the application and whether the delay had caused any prejudice to the respondent. The applicant argued that the delay was due to the complexity of the case and the need to obtain further documentation. However, the court found that the applicant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension of time. The court also noted that the delay had caused significant prejudice to the respondent, who had to prepare for a hearing without the benefit of the additional documentation that the applicant had promised to provide.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the motion for an extension of time. The court ordered that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the motion as taxed or assessed or as agreed between the parties. The court emphasised that it would not lightly grant an extension of time in circumstances where the applicant had failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances and where the delay had caused prejudice to the respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The motion for an extension of time be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the motion as taxed or assessed or as agreed between the parties.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

JACOBSON J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: JACOBSON J

Full text does not contain this section.