MRWF v Minister for Home Affairs

MRWF
v
MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS & ANOR
[2019] HCASL 215
P68/2018

This application for special leave to appeal from a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (McKerracher, Reeves and Farrell JJ) requires an extension of time in order for it to proceed. In our view, the proposed ground of appeal does not raise a question of principle that is suitable for this Court's consideration. Accordingly, special leave to appeal should be refused, and it would be futile to grant the extension of time that is sought.
Pursuant to r 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs.

S.J. Gageler
19 June 2019 P.A. Keane

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, MRWF, sought special leave to appeal a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in a case involving the Minister for Home Affairs and another. The applicants challenged the Federal Court's decision to refuse their application for a writ of mandamus, which sought to compel the Minister for Home Affairs to grant them a visa. The High Court was required to determine whether the applicants' proposed ground of appeal was suitable for its consideration and whether an extension of time for the application should be granted.

The High Court considered whether the applicants' proposed ground of appeal raised a question of principle suitable for the Court's consideration. The Court noted that the Full Court had already considered the merits of the case and that the applicants' proposed ground of appeal did not raise a new or different question of law. The Court concluded that the proposed ground of appeal did not raise a question of principle suitable for the Court's consideration and that it would be futile to grant the extension of time that was sought.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the application for special leave to appeal and directed the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs. The Court's decision was based on the view that the proposed ground of appeal did not raise a question of principle that was suitable for the Court's consideration, and that it would be futile to grant the extension of time that was sought. The Court's decision was final and binding on the applicants.

Keep reading for free

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established