Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Vo v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1906
THANG GIA UY VO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
NSD 1898 of 2008
TAMBERLIN J
10 DECEMBER 2008
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1898 of 2008
BETWEEN: THANG GIA UY VO
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: TAMBERLIN J
DATE OF ORDER: 10 DECEMBER 2008
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The applicant to pay the respondent's costs. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court's website.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1898 of 2008
BETWEEN: THANG GIA UY VO
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: TAMBERLIN J
DATE: 10 DECEMBER 2008
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Tamberlin J 1 This is an application for an extension of time filed by the applicant on 9 December 2008, within which to file and serve a notice of appeal from a judgment of Sackville J given on 22 October 2007. As is pointed out on behalf of the Minister in this matter, not only is an extension of time required, but leave is also required because the decision of Sackville J was an interlocutory decision. 2 When the matter was called on for hearing before me this morning the applicant did not appear and I note that, on the application for extension of time, the applicant indicated that he did not wish to have an oral hearing. No submissions have been put before me. 3 There is an affidavit on behalf of the applicant before me. There is an annexure to an affidavit by the applicant stating that, due to lack of legal advice and lack of knowledge, he did not know that he could appeal the decision that was made by the Federal Court, and he thought the Federal Court decision was final until 8 December when he received deportation orders. The applicant says it was at this time that he found out that he could appeal before the Federal Court. There has been no submission in support of the application, and on the face of the information and material before me it appears that the application is more than 12 months out of time. 4 No explanation has been given as to the reasons why an extension of time is required and as to why a notice of appeal was not served in time, nor is any basis given for interfering with or reviewing in any way the decision given by Sackville J on 22 October 2007. 5 Accordingly, I dismiss the application presently before me for an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal. I order that the applicant pay the costs of the respondent of this application. I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Tamberlin.
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