Delay in making judicial decision

Federal Court (Full Court). FCCA reserved for 5 years its judgement on an application under s 477 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) for an extension of time within which to make a judicial review application. Did the FCCA make a jurisdictional error by failing to take into account its own delay in determining the application for an extension of time? Can delay be sufficient to infect a judgement with jurisdictional error?

The Appellant applied to the Federal Circuit Court (FCCA) for an extension under s 477 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) of the time within which to make that judicial review application. The FCCA dismissed the time extension application in November 2018, after having heard that application in 27 November and December 2013.

The Appellant applied to the Federal Court (FCA) under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) for judicial review of the FCCA's decision on the basis that it was affected by jurisdictional error. He sought an order in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders of the FCCA orders and an order remitting his application for an extension of time to that court for determination according to law. The FCA dismissed that application and the Appellant eventually appealed to the Full Court of the FCA (FCAFC).

Some of the questions to the FCAFC were as follows:

Question 1: Was there a procedure in place for the Appellant to "complain to the Chief Judge [of the FCCA] about the delay"?

Question 2: Could the Appellant have applied for a writ of mandamus to require the FCCA to make a decision?

Question 3: Did the FCCA make jurisdictional error by failing to take into account its own delay in determining the application for an extension of time?

Question 4: Could it be said that, "in rare cases, delay in the delivery of judgment, without more, will be sufficient to infect the judgment with jurisdictional error"?

Question 5: Did the FCCA, by the delay in making its decision, abandoned its jurisdiction?

Question 6: Did the FCCA, because of the delay in making his decision, "abandon" his decision power or "became incompetent"?

The FCAFC answered those questions as follows:

The remainder of this article is only available to Case Law and Platinum subscribers.

Read our Terms & Conditions and upgrade below:

Monthly Subscriptions

Premium
Basic Content
Premium Content
-
-
$ 29 /month
Subscribe
Case Law
Basic Content
-
Case Law Content
-
$ 49 / month
Subscribe
Platinum
Basic Content
Premium Content
Case Law Content
Save $ 9 / month
$ 69 / month
Subscribe

Annual Subscriptions

Premium
Basic Content
Premium Content
-
Save $ 49 / year
$ 299 / year
Subscribe
Case Law
Basic Content
-
Case Law Content
Save $ 89 / year
$ 499 / year
Subscribe
Platinum
Basic Content
Premium Content
Case Law Content
Save $ 237 / year
$ 699 / year
Subscribe

 

Where GST applies, the above amounts are inclusive of GST.

Content Types

Basic Content includes basic news, some media articles and selected announcements.

Premium Content includes all our content, except for Case Law Content. In other words, it includes Basic Content, plus all our articles on legislative and policy changes, industry updates and the Migration Legislation Tracker.

Case Law Content includes Basic Content, plus case law summaries, analysis and extract, but does not include Premium Content.

Platinum Content includes Basic Content, plus Premium Content, plus Case Law Content. In other words, it includes ALL our content.

If you already have a Case Law or Platinum subscription, click on 'Login' below.

Previous articleVAC refunds for certain visas
Next articleArrangements for certain business skills visas