Selvidge v Director of Professional Services Review [2010] FCA 965

Selvidge v Director of Professional Services Review [2010] FCA 965

Although granting leave would not cause significant prejudice to the respondents, the applicant gave no good reason for the delay beyond a change of counsel, and absence of prejudice was insufficient to justify an extension. Refusing leave would also not significantly prejudice the applicant because the same facts and substantially the same relief would be available through the existing claims. The application for extension of time was therefore refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time Under S 11(1)(c) of the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) / Leave Application to Bring a Claim Under S 5 of the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) After Time Had Expired
Outcome
Application refused; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'judicial Review Under the ADJR Act' 'workplace Harassment and Bullying' 'amendment of Application']
['administrative Law' 'federal Court Procedure' 'employment Law'] ['extension of Time' 'judicial Review Under the ADJR Act' 'workplace Harassment and Bullying' 'amendment of Application']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time Under S 11(1)(c) of the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) / Leave Application to Bring a Claim Under S 5 of the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) After Time Had Expired

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted leave under s 11(1)(c) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) to bring an out-of-time claim under s 5 of that Act.' 'Whether absence of prejudice to the respondents was sufficient reason to extend time.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although granting leave would not cause significant prejudice to the respondents, the applicant gave no good reason for the delay beyond a change of counsel, and absence of prejudice was insufficient to justify an extension. Refusing leave would also not significantly prejudice the applicant because the same facts and substantially the same relief would be available through the existing claims. The application for extension of time was therefore refused.

Court Disposition

Application refused; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time under s 11(1)(c) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) is refused.' 'There be no order for the costs of this application.']