BKW17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

BKW17 and another minor child (BKV17) (together, the applicants) applied for an extension of time to appeal from orders of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (FCC). The applicants sought to appeal from the FCC’s dismissal of their respective applications for judicial review of decisions of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to refuse to grant them protection (refugee) visas. The applicants were minors at the relevant times. The Minister opposed the application for an extension of time. The applicants contended that they were not bound by the outcome of previous appeals by reason of the fact that no litigation representative was appointed in respect of their appeal to the FCC. The applicants submitted that the appeal was invalid and could be ignored because of the absence of a litigation representative. The applicants submitted that the Registrar of the FCC had no power to appoint their fathers as their litigation representatives. The Minister submitted that the applicants were bound by the outcome of the previous appeals and that the appointments of the applicants’ fathers as their litigation representatives were valid and could not be ignored. The Minister submitted that the Registrar of the FCC had broad powers to appoint litigation representatives for minors and that the appointments were valid. The court had to determine whether the applicants were bound by the outcome of previous appeals and whether the appointments of the applicants’ fathers as their litigation representatives were valid. The court held that the applicants were bound by the outcome of previous appeals and that the appointments of the applicants’ fathers as their litigation representatives were valid. The court held that the applicants were bound by the outcome of previous appeals because they were parties to the proceedings in which the appeals were heard and determined. The court held that the Registrar of the FCC had broad powers to appoint litigation representatives for minors and that the appointments were valid. The court held that the Registrar’s power to appoint litigation representatives for minors was conferred by section 91X of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and that the power was broad. The court held that the Registrar’s appointments of the applicants’ fathers as their litigation representatives were valid because the Registrar had the power to make such appointments and the appointments were made in accordance with the relevant statute and rules. The court dismissed the application for an extension of time with costs. The court ordered that the parties file and serve submissions of no more than 2 pages as to costs, including who should bear the costs. The court also varied the name of the first respondent to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs.