DKX17 & Anor v Federal Circuit Court of Australia & Ors DNF17 v Federal Circuit Court of Australia & Ors DNG17 v Federal Circuit Court of Australia & Ors DNH17 v Federal Circuit Court of Australia
[2020] HCASL 37
DKX17 & ANOR
v
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA & ORS
DNF17
v
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA & ORS
DNG17
v
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA & ORS
DNH17
v
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA & ORS
[2020] HCASL 37
S83/2019
S84/2019
S85/2019
S86/2019
Although we have been greatly assisted by the submissions of pro bono counsel, these amended applications for special leave to appeal from the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (Rangiah J; Reeves and Bromwich JJ agreeing) are not an appropriate vehicle to consider the issue raised in the first proposed ground in the amended application concerning the statutory implication of a threshold of materiality for the existence of a jurisdictional error.
As to the second and third proposed grounds of appeal, in circumstances where (i) the denial of procedural fairness occurred in an adjournment application concerning submissions about the prospects of success of applications for an extension of time, (ii) each application for judicial review was already over 1,300 days out of time, (iii) the applicants made no submissions about the merits of the applications for judicial review when given an opportunity to do so on the extension of time applications, and (iv) no submission concerning jurisdictional error has been identified that has reasonable prospects of success, an appeal to this Court would not enjoy sufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave. An extension of time is required to enable these applications for special leave to proceed. In light of the conclusions we have reached, it would be futile to grant the extension of time. Each application should be dismissed.
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 each application and providing that the applicants pay the costs of the second respondent.
P.A. Keane J.J. Edelman 13 February 2020
0
0