Plaintiff S288/2017 v Honourable Justice Jane Margaret Jagot & Ors

The proceeding involved Plaintiff S288/2017 and the Honourable Justice Jane Margaret Jagot (the first defendant) and the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (the second defendant). The plaintiff sought various relief by an application for an order to show cause, alleging that Justice Jagot had made a jurisdictional error in refusing an extension of time for an appeal where the substantive grounds were meritorious. The matter came before the Court for hearing.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether to grant the plaintiff's application for an adjournment of the hearing. The plaintiff sought this adjournment to allow him time to retain a barrister to assist in presenting his claim. This application was opposed by the second defendant.

The Court considered the reasons for the opposition to the adjournment, which included the length of time the proceeding had been on foot (approximately nine months), the lack of explanation for the plaintiff's inability to secure legal representation to date, and the absence of evidence suggesting he would be able to obtain representation in the near future. The plaintiff argued that he was uneducated and required a barrister to properly articulate his case and submit evidence. The Court refused the application for an adjournment, stating that it agreed with the reasons for opposition. The Court then indicated it would proceed to the substantive hearing, having reviewed the plaintiff's affidavit, application, and outline of submissions, and invited the plaintiff to add anything further. The plaintiff reiterated his difficulties in obtaining legal representation and explained his situation regarding his brother's similar circumstances being treated differently by immigration authorities. The Court then invited the second defendant to make any additional submissions, which were declined. The Court reserved its decision and scheduled delivery for 9:30 am on 30 August.