BUB18 & Anor v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor

Case [2023] HCASL 89

BUB18 & ANOR

v

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS & ANOR

[2023] HCASL 89
S27/2023

  1. This application for special leave to appeal from a decision of a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia exercising appellate jurisdiction (Nicholas J) does not raise a question of law of public importance or any identifiable error that might warrant the grant of special leave to appeal. The application should be dismissed.

  2. Pursuant to r 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

J.J. Edelman J.S. Gleeson
8 June 2023

Continue reading BUB18 & Anor v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Mul...

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
BUB18 & Anor v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor [2023] HCASL 89
Case
[2023] HCASL 89
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of BUB18 & Anor v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor, the applicants, BUB18 and another, sought special leave to appeal against a decision of the Federal Court of Australia, exercising appellate jurisdiction. The applicants challenged the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs and another in relation to their immigration status and associated matters. The High Court was tasked with determining whether the applicants' appeal raised a question of law of significant public importance or an identifiable error that warranted the grant of special leave to appeal.

The legal issues before the court were centred on whether the applicants' appeal met the criteria for special leave to appeal, specifically if it raised a question of law of public importance or an identifiable error warranting such leave. The court had to consider whether the appeal was of general interest or if it was confined to the specific circumstances of the case, which would not contribute to the development of the law.

The court found that the applicants' appeal did not raise a question of law of public importance or an identifiable error that would warrant the grant of special leave to appeal. The court was of the opinion that the appeal was confined to the specific circumstances of the case and did not have the potential to contribute significantly to the development of the law. Therefore, the application for special leave to appeal was dismissed.

Pursuant to rule 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), the Registrar was directed to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. The order was signed by J.J. Edelman and J.S. Gleeson on 8 June 2023.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.