Khaling v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

In the case of Khaling v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, the applicants, who had previously been refused student visas, sought reinstatement of their application for judicial review of that decision. The primary issue before the court was whether the application for an extension of time to seek judicial review had any "arguable prospect of success" and if the application should be reinstated. The court also had to consider the explanation provided by the applicants for their failure to appear at the scheduled hearing for the extension of time, and whether there would be any prejudice to the Minister if the matter were reinstated.

The applicants provided a reason for their non-appearance at the scheduled hearing, citing that their family members were ill at the time. However, the court found that "forgetting" a hearing date was not a satisfactory explanation for their failure to appear. Despite the applicants' distressing situation, the court held that their explanation was insufficient. Regarding prejudice, the Minister argued that there would be no prejudice beyond the public interest in the finality of administrative decision-making, and the court agreed that any prejudice could be mitigated by a costs order in the Minister's favour.

On the merits, the court examined whether the applicants had an arguable case on judicial review. The court found no arguable case of jurisdictional error identified by the applicants, as the Tribunal had correctly determined that the first applicant did not satisfy the criteria for the grant of the visa, which in turn affected the second applicant's eligibility. The court concluded that the applicants did not have an arguable case on judicial review, and thus, the application for reinstatement was dismissed.

In summary, the court dismissed the application for reinstatement of the applicants' judicial review, finding that the applicants did not provide a satisfactory explanation for their non-appearance and that there was no arguable case of jurisdictional error.