WZANX v Minister for Immigration & Anor

The case of WZANX v Minister for Immigration & Anor involved an applicant, whose identity is protected by a pseudonym under section 91X of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), who sought judicial review of a decision to cancel their visa and to be removed from Australia. The applicant was represented by counsel, and the first respondent, the Minister for Immigration, was represented by the Australian Government Solicitor. The second respondent, the Department of Home Affairs, did not appear. The High Court was asked to review the decision of the Federal Court of Australia, which had dismissed the applicant’s application for an extension of time to lodge an application for judicial review.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction to grant an extension of time under section 39B(1A) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), and whether the Federal Court exercised that jurisdiction appropriately in declining to grant the extension of time. The court was also required to consider whether the Federal Court’s decision was so unjust that the High Court ought to intervene.

The court held that the Federal Court did have jurisdiction to grant an extension of time under section 39B(1A) of the Judiciary Act, but that the court had exercised that jurisdiction appropriately in declining to grant the extension of time. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that they had a reasonable excuse for the delay in lodging the application for judicial review, as required by section 39B(1A)(b) of the Judiciary Act. The court also found that the decision of the Federal Court was not so unjust as to warrant intervention by the High Court. The court held that the Federal Court had considered all relevant material, including the applicant’s personal circumstances, and had exercised its discretion in accordance with the relevant legal principles.

The orders of the court were that the applicant be accorded a pseudonym pursuant to section 91X of the Migration Act, that the application for an extension of time be dismissed, that the application for judicial review be dismissed, and that the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs in the sum of $2935. The court held that the application for an extension of time was properly dismissed, as the applicant had not demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the delay in lodging the application for judicial review. The court also held that the application for judicial review was properly dismissed, as the Federal Court had exercised its discretion in accordance with the relevant legal principles. Finally, the court held that the applicant should pay the costs of the first respondent, as the application for judicial review was frivolous and vexatious.