In the Matter of An Application for Leave to Appeal BY Michael Van Thanh Quach

Case [2016] HCASL 285


IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY MICHAEL VAN THANH QUACH

[2016] HCASL 285
C9/2016

  1. To grant the extension of time necessary to enable the application to proceed would be futile.

  2. The proposed appeal enjoys insufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of leave to appeal.

  3. Leave to appeal should be refused. 

  4. Pursuant to r 41.08.1, we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

S M Kiefel
11 November 2016
P A Keane
Details
AGLC
In the Matter of An Application for Leave to Appeal BY Michael Van Thanh Quach [2016] HCASL 285
Case
[2016] HCASL 285
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Michael Van Thanh Quach applied to the court for leave to appeal against a decision of the Federal Court of Australia. The primary matter concerned an application under the Migration Act 1958, which was dismissed by the Federal Court. The applicant sought to appeal against this dismissal to the High Court of Australia. The court was required to decide whether to grant leave for this appeal. This involved assessing both the procedural aspect of whether an extension of time was warranted and the substantive aspect of whether the proposed appeal had sufficient prospects of success to justify the grant of leave.

The court found that extending the time for the application would be futile as the Federal Court's decision was final and binding without the possibility of a successful appeal. Furthermore, the proposed appeal did not demonstrate sufficient prospects of success, as the arguments presented were unlikely to persuade the High Court to overturn the lower court's decision. The court concluded that the application for leave to appeal should be refused.

The High Court held that granting leave to appeal would not serve any useful purpose and was therefore denied. The court ordered that the Registrar prepare, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application. This decision was made on the basis that the application did not meet the criteria for leave to appeal, both in terms of procedural timeliness and the merits of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.