CPJ16 v Minister for Home Affairs

CPJ16
v
MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS
[2021] HCASL 149
S1/2021

The applicant seeks leave to appeal a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia.
When the original application was filed, the applicant was unrepresented. The Court directed that the Registrar seek the assistance of pro bono counsel for the applicant. An amended application prepared by pro bono counsel was subsequently filed and served on the respondent. Following filing by the respondent of a response, the applicant personally filed submissions entitled "The Applicant's Response". Pursuant to leave granted to them, two of the pro-bono counsel who had prepared the amended application also filed submissions entitled "Amici Curiae Reply". We have taken full account of the submissions of the applicant and of pro bono counsel in making our decision.
We are of the opinion that the prospects of success of the proposed appeal are not such as to warrant the grant of special leave.
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. Having regard to the procedural history of the application, there will be no order as to costs.

S.J Gageler J.S Gleeson

12 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, CPJ16, sought leave to appeal a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, made in a matter concerning their visa status. The Minister for Home Affairs was the respondent. The applicant was initially unrepresented and the Court appointed pro bono counsel to assist them. After the respondent filed a response, the applicant personally filed their own submissions. Pro bono counsel also submitted additional arguments on behalf of the applicant. The High Court was required to decide whether the applicant had a sufficient prospect of success in the appeal to warrant granting special leave.

The High Court considered the submissions from the applicant, the respondent, and the pro bono counsel. The Court assessed the merits of the appeal and concluded that the applicant did not have a sufficient prospect of success to warrant granting special leave. The Court noted the procedural history of the application and decided not to order costs.

The High Court, led by S.J Gageler and J.S Gleeson, dismissed the application for special leave. The Court directed the Registrar to prepare, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application. The Court also decided not to make an order regarding costs due to the procedural history of the case. The decision was made on 12 August 2021.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established