CKA15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

In the case of CKA15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, the applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Federal Circuit Court not to extend the time within which to seek judicial review of a decision by an immigration tribunal. The applicants argued that the tribunal had erred in procedural fairness by calling a witness who had not been proposed to be called by the applicants, and that the tribunal's findings on key claims were irrational and illogical. The applicants also argued that the tribunal had failed to take into account relevant considerations, including the age of one of the witnesses at the time of the events in question. The court was required to decide whether the Federal Circuit Court had made a jurisdictional error in refusing to extend time, and whether the tribunal's decision had been affected by any errors of law or procedural unfairness.

The court found that the Federal Circuit Court had not made a jurisdictional error in refusing to extend time. The court found that the applicants had provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in bringing the application for judicial review, and that the proposed grounds of review did not have sufficient merit to warrant an extension of time. The court also found that the tribunal's decision had not been affected by any errors of law or procedural unfairness. The court found that the tribunal had not erred in calling a witness who had not been proposed to be called by the applicants, as the tribunal had inquisitorial functions and was not bound by evidence proposed to be called by the parties. The court also found that the tribunal's findings on key claims were not irrational or illogical, and that the tribunal had not failed to take into account relevant considerations, including the age of one of the witnesses at the time of the events in question.

The proceeding was dismissed and the applicants were ordered to pay the costs of the First Respondent, either as agreed or taxed. The court found that the applicants' arguments did not identify any error in the identification of the principles to be applied when exercising the discretion to extend time, or any other error, be it jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional. The court found that the Further Amended Originating Application should be dismissed, and that there was no reason why costs should not follow the event. The court found that the costs should include the costs incurred by reason of the proceeding having to be stood over to the following day to enable the applicants to further amend the former Amended Originating Application.