Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Migration - appeal from decision dismissing an application for an order for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal - whether application out of time - whether Court has jurisdiction to consider grounds for failure to lodge application in time. Migration Act 1958 - s 478 PATHMANATHAN NIRMALAN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS NG 1143 of 1997 JUDGES: BEAUMONT, BRANSON AND EMMETT JJ. PLACE: SYDNEY DATE: 14 MAY 1998
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG 1143 of 1997
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: PATHMANATHAN NIRMALAN
AppELLant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGES: BEAUMONT, BRANSON AND EMMETT JJ.
DATE OF ORDER: 14 MAY 1998
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
ORDERS: Appeal dismissed with costs. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG 1143 of 1997
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: PATHMANATHAN NIRMALAN
AppELLant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGES: BEAUMONT, BRANSON AND EMMETT JJ.
DATE: 14 MAY 1998
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BEAUMONT J: This is an appeal from a decision of Einfeld J dismissing an application for an order for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). His Honour dismissed the application on the ground that, by virtue of the provisions of the Migration Act 1958 ("the Act"), the application was out of time and the Court had no jurisdiction to extend that time. The decision of the Tribunal was made on 28 July 1997. There was evidence before his Honour that the appellant was notified of that decision by facsimile dated 29 July 1997. The application for review was filed in this Court on 3 December 1997. It appears that after the Tribunal's decision, the appellant made representations to the Minister in the matter and it may be that for this reason, the appellant decided not to institute the application for judicial review.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate