Vanniasinghe, Anton Hillary v The President, Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission & Anor [1998] FCA 772

Vanniasinghe, Anton Hillary v The President, Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission & Anor [1998] FCA 772

The extension of time was refused because the delay after the applicant was told he could apply to the Court and would need an extension was substantial and unexplained, and because the proposed review application was without merit. The material did not show a causal connection between alleged racist remarks and any actual employment disadvantage, nor any basis for concluding that the President erred in law in finding no evidence, or no sufficient evidence, capable of proving the racial discrimination complaint.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 June 1998
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 / Application for Extension of Time to Bring the Application
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused; applicant ordered to pay the second respondent's costs.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'extension of Time' 'racial Discrimination Complaint' 'insufficient Evidence' 'costs']
['administrative Law' 'human Rights and Discrimination Law' 'employment Law'] ['judicial Review' 'extension of Time' 'racial Discrimination Complaint' 'insufficient Evidence' 'costs']

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 Judicial Review Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 / Application for Extension of Time to Bring the Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an extension of time should be granted for an application under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 filed outside the 28 day period.' "Whether the proposed judicial review application had sufficient substance or disclosed an error of law in the President's conclusion that there was no evidence, or no sufficient evidence, capable of proving racial discrimination."]

Ratio Decidendi

The extension of time was refused because the delay after the applicant was told he could apply to the Court and would need an extension was substantial and unexplained, and because the proposed review application was without merit. The material did not show a causal connection between alleged racist remarks and any actual employment disadvantage, nor any basis for concluding that the President erred in law in finding no evidence, or no sufficient evidence, capable of proving the racial discrimination complaint.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused; applicant ordered to pay the second respondent's costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for extension of time for the bringing of an application under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 is refused.' "The applicant pay the second respondent's costs of and incidental to the application."]