DTF17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

Case [2021] FCA 446

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DTF17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCA 446

Appeal from: DTF17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (No 2) [2020] FCA 383
File number: NSD 1068 of 2020
Judgment of: MIDDLETON J
Date of judgment: 27 April 2021
Date of publication of reasons: 29 April 2021
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act (1976) (Cth)
Division: General Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Number of paragraphs: 7
Date of hearing: 27 April 2021
Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant did not appear
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr G Johnson
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

NSD 1068 of 2020
BETWEEN:

DTF17

Applicant
AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

MIDDLETON J

DATE OF ORDER:

27 APRIL 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for an extension of time be dismissed with costs.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

MIDDLETON J:

  1. This application was called on for hearing today as scheduled in the Court List.  There was no appearance for or by the Applicant.

  2. I propose that the application for an extension of time to appeal be dismissed with costs. 

  3. The power to do so is found in s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act (1976) (Cth) when read in conjunction with s 25(2BA). 

  4. It is a matter for the Court’s discretion as to whether the power to dismiss should be exercised when an applicant fails to appear before the Court. 

  5. The Applicant has been notified in the normal course, and yesterday by email sent by the Minister’s solicitors, that the hearing would be on today at 10.15 am before this Court.  My associate has also just attempted to call the mobile number on the application form filed by the Applicant, and the call could not be connected. 

  6. I am satisfied that appropriate notice has been given to the Applicant of the hearing today.  Neither the Court nor the Minister has received any excuse or explanation for non-attendance, and in those circumstances there will be no justification to adjourn the hearing or proceed other than to dismiss the application with costs. 

  7. I order that the application for an extension of time to appeal be dismissed with the costs.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Middleton.

Associate:

Dated:       29 April 2021

Details
AGLC
DTF17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCA 446
Case
[2021] FCA 446
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of DTF17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs involved a dispute between the applicant, DTF17, and the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The applicant sought an extension of time to file an application for judicial review of a decision made by the Minister. The case was heard by the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant was entitled to an extension of time to file the application for judicial review. The applicant argued that there were exceptional circumstances that justified an extension, including delays caused by the Minister's actions and the applicant's health issues. The Minister, on the other hand, argued that the applicant had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the claim of exceptional circumstances and that the application was filed well beyond the deadline.

The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension of time. The court noted that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to support the claim of delays caused by the Minister's actions and that the health issues raised were not sufficiently compelling to warrant an extension. The court also noted that the applicant had failed to file the application within a reasonable time and that the application was filed well beyond the deadline. As a result, the court dismissed the application for an extension of time with costs.

The court ordered that the application for an extension of time be dismissed with costs. The costs were to be paid by the applicant to the Minister. The court also noted that the dismissal of the application for an extension of time did not prevent the applicant from filing a new application for judicial review if they wished to do so. However, the applicant would need to ensure that they complied with the relevant time limits and provided sufficient evidence to support any claim of exceptional circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for an extension of time be dismissed with costs.

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.