Patel v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

Case [2018] FCA 458


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Patel v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 458

File number: NSD 1815 of 2017
Judge: DOWSETT J
Date of judgment: 26 March 2018
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to set aside earlier order pursuant to s 25(2B)(bc) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – application dismissed
Legislation:

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 25(2B)

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 5.22, 5.23, 36.75

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)

Date of hearing: 26 March 2018
Registry: New South Wales
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 3
Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant did not appear
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Ms B Rayment of Sparke Helmore
Counsel for the Second Respondent: The Second Respondent submits to any order of the Court, save as to costs

ORDERS

NSD 1815 of 2017
BETWEEN:

MUKESHKUMAR AMBALAL PATEL

Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE:

DOWSETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

26 MARCH 2018

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.the application filed 14 March 2018 be dismissed pursuant to r 5.23(1)(b)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth); and

2.the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs of the application.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

DOWSETT J:

  1. On 14 February 2018 I dismissed an appeal by the present applicant pursuant to r 36.75(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (“the Federal Court Rules”), the ground for such dismissal being his absence from the hearing. On 14 March 2018 the applicant filed an application for an order setting aside my earlier order and for other relief. The application was listed for hearing today before me in Brisbane and, by videolink, to Sydney. The applicant has, again, not appeared. I have power pursuant to s 25(2B)(bc) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) to vary or set aside my earlier order, which was an order of the kind described in s 25(2B)(bb)(ii). In other words, the application should be treated as an invitation to exercise the appellate jurisdiction of the Court. This application is a proceeding within the meaning of r 5.22 and r 5.23 of the Federal Court Rules. The applicant is in default in that he has not attended today. I therefore dismiss the application pursuant to r 5.23(1)(b)(i).

  2. I should add that the Tribunal dismissed the applicant’s visa application on the basis that, pursuant to criterion 3001 in Sch 3 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) the application had to be made within 28 days of the expiry date of his last substantive visa. The evidence demonstrated that the expiry date was 28 December 2012. The presently relevant visa application was made on 11 July 2016. There has never been any dispute about these dates. In those circumstances, the application to the Circuit Court for review of the Tribunal’s decision, and the appeal to this Court from the Circuit Court Judge’s decision were always bound to fail.

  3. I dismiss the application filed on 14 March 2018.  I order that the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs of the application.  I note that the second respondent indicated, in connection with the appeal, that it would abide the order of the Court, save as to costs.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett.

Associate: 

Dated:        4 April 2018

Details
AGLC
Patel v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 458
Case
[2018] FCA 458
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Patel v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection involved the applicant, Patel, who sought to set aside an earlier order that had been made in relation to his visa application. The respondent was the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, and the matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. Patel sought to have the earlier order set aside under section 25(2B)(bc) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), and his application was ultimately dismissed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the application to set aside the earlier order was within the time limits set out in the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). The court considered whether Patel had a sufficient basis for his application, and whether the application was made within the relevant time frame. The court also considered whether the application met the criteria set out in section 25(2B)(bc) of the Act, which relates to applications to set aside orders that have been made without proper consideration of relevant material.

In considering the matter, the court found that Patel's application was not made within the relevant time limits, and that it did not meet the criteria set out in section 25(2B)(bc) of the Act. The court held that Patel had not provided any new material or evidence that would justify setting aside the earlier order, and that the application was therefore without merit. The court also found that the application was an abuse of process, and ordered that Patel pay the costs of the application to the Minister. The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the relevant statutory provisions and case law, and was ultimately focused on ensuring that the court's resources were not wasted on meritless applications.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. the application filed 14 March 2018 be dismissed pursuant to r 5.23(1)(b)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth); and

2. the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs of the application.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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.