FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Barton v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 120
File number: NSD 2017 of 2018 Judge: LEE J Date of judgment: 25 January 2019 Catchwords: MIGRATION – application for review of a Tribunal decision to affirm a decision of a delegate of the minister not to revoke a cancellation decision – whether application is incompetent and liable to be dismissed pursuant to FCR 31.24(5) – application treated as an application for extension of time – discretion as to whether or not an extension of time should be granted – grounds of the application do not allege any jurisdictional error in the Tribunal decision – application dismissed Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 477A, 501
Federal Court Rules 31.24Date of hearing: 25 January 2019 Registry: New South Wales Division: General Division National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 8 Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr D McLaren Solicitor for the First Respondent: Minter Ellison Lawyers Counsel for the Respondents: The Second Respondent entered a submitting notice, save as to costs ORDERS
NSD 2017 of 2018 BETWEEN: DAENA BARTON
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
LEE J
DATE OF ORDER:
25 JANUARY 2019
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Leave be granted to treat the application made by the applicant on 29 October 2018 as an application to extend time to bring an application to review the decision of the second respondent.
2.The application to extend time be dismissed with costs.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Revised from the TranscriptLEE J:
By application filed on 29 October 2018, the applicant, Mr Barton, listed the “Minister of Immigration” and the “Federal Court of Australia” as respondents. The application sought relief in the following terms: “not to revoke cancellation of visa”. The grounds of the application were identified as follows:
1.I was a Mannus correctional centre in Wagga Wagga from October 31, 2017 to February 27, 2018 and while I was in the care of Mannus correctional centre I was issued with the notice of my visa cancellation. On August 29, 2018 I sat before the A.A.T. And the decision to revoke the cancellation was affirmed to not revoke my visa, which lead’s me to the Federal court.
2.I have been a resident in Australia since 2002, 16 years, I have been active in the working community since my arrival 2002 and stopped working in 2015 due to work related injuries. I have 2 beautiful teenage daughter’s that were both born here in Liverpool Hospital and to be honest they need me in there live’s to support them while growing up in these critical stages of there lives. I get visit’s every week which is critical to my mental well being because visit’s to me is all I have of…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Barton v Minister for Home Affairs and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2019] FCA 120
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined Barton’s application and found that it did not allege any jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision. Instead, the application appeared to seek an extension of time to bring a new application to review the Tribunal’s decision. The court noted that the application did not meet the criteria for a substantive review but rather sought an extension of time to bring a new application. The court exercised its discretion under the Federal Court Rules to treat Barton's application as one for an extension of time. However, given the grounds presented, the court decided that the application for an extension of time should be dismissed.
Barton's application was dismissed, and the court further ordered that leave be granted to treat the application as one for an extension of time. The court also ordered that the application to extend time be dismissed with costs. This decision underscores the importance of correctly framing an application for judicial review and the court’s discretion in managing applications for extensions of time.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Leave be granted to treat the application made by the applicant on 29 October 2018 as an application to extend time to bring an application to review the decision of the second respondent.
2. The application to extend time be dismissed with costs.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.