Coe16 v Minister for Immmigration and Border Protection

Link copied
Case Copied 1 min read

COE16

v

MINISTER FOR IMMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION & ANOR

[2019] HCASL 373
S278/2019

  1. The applicant seeks special leave to appeal from a decision of Griffiths J in the Federal Court of Australia. The proposed appeal would not enjoy sufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal. Special leave should be refused.

  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.

V.M Bell S.J Gageler
13 November 2019
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Coe16 v Minister for Immmigration and Border Protection 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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2019] HCASL 373
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Coe16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection concerns an application by the applicant, referred to as COE16, for special leave to appeal a decision made by Griffiths J in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant was challenging a decision regarding their immigration status, which ultimately led to their detention and proposed removal from Australia. The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection was the respondent in this case, and the application for special leave to appeal was filed with the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue that the court had to address was whether the application for special leave to appeal should be granted. This decision hinged on whether the proposed appeal had sufficient prospects of success. The court was required to consider the merits of the applicant's arguments and determine if they were compelling enough to warrant an appeal to the High Court. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the case presented any significant legal questions or if it involved matters of public importance that would justify the intervention of the High Court.

The court found that the proposed appeal did not possess sufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave. The reasons for this conclusion were not explicitly detailed in the provided text, but it can be inferred that the court was not convinced that the applicant's arguments had a strong chance of prevailing in the High Court. As a result, the court ruled that special leave should be refused. The court also directed the Registrar to prepare an order dismissing the application, in accordance with rule 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).

The final orders of the court were to refuse the application for special leave to appeal and to dismiss the application. The Registrar was directed to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application, which was signed by Justices Bell and Gageler on 13 November 2019. This decision effectively concluded the applicant's bid to have their case heard by the High Court and upheld the Federal Court's original decision.

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.