GKH18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

In the matter of GKH18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, the Federal Court of Australia was presented with an appeal against a decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The appellants, GKH18 and another, had their application for a protection visa refused by the delegate of the Minister. This decision was subsequently affirmed by the Immigration Assessment Authority. The appellants sought an extension of time to lodge a review application in the Federal Circuit Court, which was dismissed. They now challenge this decision, contending that the Federal Circuit Court did not properly consider their application or afford them an opportunity to present their case.

The primary legal issues in this case revolve around whether the Federal Circuit Court erred in its consideration of the appellants' application for an extension of time. Specifically, the appellants argue that the court failed to properly consider their application and did not provide them with an adequate opportunity to present their case. The appellants also sought to have any costs order against them paid by instalments.

The court found that the primary judge did not err in his application of section 477(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to refuse the extension of time. The primary judge had considered the merits of the application within the confines of the generalised submissions made by the appellants and found a lack of merit in the substantial application. The court also considered the issue of procedural fairness, taking into account the limited submissions made by the appellants. The court held that neither the matters raised by the appellants nor its own review of the primary judge's reasons disclosed any error by the primary judge. Therefore, the application under section 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) must be dismissed with costs.

The court ordered that the appellants pay the respondent's costs of the application in the sum of $4,500 within eight weeks of the orders. This amount is less than the costs that can be claimed in a short form bill for an application involving a migration decision. The court also took into account the appellants' request for time to pay the costs, and the order was made clear and certain given the lack of detail about the preferred instalment payment regime.