Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
MR. JUSTICE SMITH: These cases are identical in the relief sought by way of relief to apply for judicial review. They seek injunctive relief restraining the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") from proceeding with the hearing of the Applicants' appeals until such time as access to previous decisions of the tribunal and/or the Refugee Appeals Authority are furnished to the Applicants; and/or an order of mandamus requiring the Tribunal or Minister to furnish the Applicants copies of such decisions.
The Applicants also seek a stay restraining the Tribunal from further processing or hearing the Applicants appeals, pending the determination of these proceedings. The grounds upon which relief are sought are:-
Appeals from decisions of the Refugee Appeals Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as "the Commissioner") are provided for under Section 16 of the Refugee Act 1996, as amended. Section 23 of the said Act enables the Minister to make regulations referrable to such appeals, this he did in Statutory Instrument No. 342 of 2000, entitled Refugee Act 1996 (Appeals) Regulations, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations").
In each of the cases the oral hearing was re-scheduled for the month of February 2002. The Applicants' solicitors by letter in "U" dated 13 th February 2002 wrote to the Minister conveying the gist of the correspondence they had with the Tribunal and then noted.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.