FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DBA16 v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1539
File number: VID 1290 of 2018 Judge: WHEELAHAN J Date of judgment: 11 October 2018 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – interlocutory application to expedite hearing of proceeding – Bill pending before Parliament – proposed validation of appointment of an area under s 5(5)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – application refused Cases cited: DBA16 v Minister for Home Affairs & Anor [2018] FCCA 2761
DBA16 v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2017] FCA 1580
DBA16 v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2017] FCCA 320
DBC16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCCA 1802
DBD16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCCA 1801
Esso Australia Resources Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (No 1) (2011) 196 FCR 560
Jupp v Computer Power Group Ltd (1994) 122 ALR 711
Meggitt Overseas Ltd v Grdovic (1998) 43 NSWLR 527
R v Whiteway; Ex parte Stephenson [1961] VR 168
Sydney City Council v Ke-Su Investments Pty Ltd (1985) 1 NSWLR 246
Warramunda Village Inc v Pryde (2002) 116 FCR 58
Willow Wren Canal Carrying Co Ltd v British Transport Commission [1956] 1 WLR 213
Wong v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 973
Date of hearing: 10 October 2018 Registry: Victoria Division: General Division National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 20 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr A Aleksov Solicitor for the Applicant: Asylum Seeker Resource Centre Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr A Yuile Solicitor for the First Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Counsel for the Second Respondent: The Second Respondent filed a submitting notice ORDERS
VID 1290 of 2018 BETWEEN: DBA16
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS
First Respondent
IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY
Second Respondent
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
Third Respondent
JUDGE:
WHEELAHAN J
DATE OF ORDER:
11 OCTOBER 2018
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The applicant is to file and serve submissions not exceeding ten pages by 4.00pm, 11 October 2018.
2.The first respondent is to file and serve submissions not exceeding ten pages by 4.00pm, 18 October 2018.
3.The interlocutory application filed 8 October 2018 is dismissed.
4.Liberty to apply.
5.The costs of the interlocutory application are reserved.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
WHEELAHAN J:
On 27 September 2018 the Federal Circuit Court constituted by Her Honour Judge Kirton refused an application by the applicant under s 477(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) for an extension of time within which to bring an application to the Federal Circuit Court for a remedy under s 476 of the Act: DBA16 v Minister for Home Affairs & Anor [2018] FCCA 2761. By operation of s 476A(3) of the Migration Act no appeal lies to the Federal Court from an order of the Federal Circuit Court refusing an application for an extension of time under s 477(2).
The applicant…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read DBA16 v Minister for Home Affairs 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2018] FCA 1539
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court involved the appropriate exercise of the court’s discretion to expedite proceedings, the relevance of pending legislation to the urgency of the matter, and the balance between the applicant's interest in timely resolution and the broader public interest in the orderly administration of justice. The court was required to determine whether the circumstances of the case warranted an expedited hearing and, if so, to what extent.
In dismissing the interlocutory application, the court held that while the applicant had demonstrated a need for timely resolution due to the pending legislative changes, the overall balance of considerations did not support an expedited hearing. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that all relevant submissions were made and considered in a fair and orderly manner. The court also noted that the applicant had not demonstrated that the urgency of the matter outweighed the need for a thorough and considered judicial process. Consequently, the interlocutory application was dismissed, and the applicant was directed to file and serve submissions within specified timeframes. The costs of the interlocutory application were reserved, and liberty to apply was granted.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The applicant is to file and serve submissions not exceeding ten pages by 4.00pm, 11 October 2018.
2. The first respondent is to file and serve submissions not exceeding ten pages by 4.00pm, 18 October 2018.
3. The interlocutory application filed 8 October 2018 is dismissed.
4. Liberty to apply.
5. The costs of the interlocutory application are reserved.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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.