FFM20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

The case of FFM20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs concerned an application for an extension of time to appeal against a migration decision, with the applicant having been in immigration detention for over 11 years. The applicant sought leave to argue new points on appeal that were not previously argued before the primary judge. The legal issues before the court were whether the proposed grounds of appeal could have been met by evidence before the primary judge and whether the Minister would be deprived of the opportunity of adducing evidence on certain matters if the new points were allowed.

The court considered that the principles established in Suttor v Gundowda Pty Ltd and Coulton v Holcombe meant that an appellate court would not entertain a point not raised in the court below if evidence could have been given there which by any possibility could have prevented the point from succeeding. The court found that the proposed grounds of appeal were points that could have been met by evidence before the primary judge, as the Minister could have led evidence on whether, under Norwegian law, indefinite detention is a possibility, whether it is a realistic possibility in practice, and what country information concerning Norway was before the delegate. The court also found that the Minister would be deprived of the opportunity of adducing evidence on these matters if the new points were allowed.

The court dismissed the application for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal with costs. The court held that the applicant's proposed grounds of appeal were points that could have been met by evidence before the primary judge and that the Minister would be deprived of the opportunity of adducing evidence on certain matters if the new points were allowed. Therefore, the application for leave to argue new points on appeal was dismissed.