Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v Holloway [2001] FCA 1240

Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v Holloway [2001] FCA 1240

The application for an extension of time was refused because the six and a half month delay was not adequately explained by the sparse assertions of lack of funds and prior adverse advice, and the proposed grounds of appeal did not have sufficient prospects of success to make it just to allow an appeal out of time.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 August 2001
Procedural Posture
Application for an Extension of Time Within Which to Appeal / Full Court Application Under O 52 R 15(2) of the Federal Court Rules From Judgment of Mansfield J
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'special Reasons' 'civil Penalty Proceedings' 'superannuation Avoidance Schemes' 'ministerial Consent for Regulatory Directions']
['civil Procedure' 'superannuation Regulation'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'special Reasons' 'civil Penalty Proceedings' 'superannuation Avoidance Schemes' 'ministerial Consent for Regulatory Directions']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for an Extension of Time Within Which to Appeal / Full Court Application Under O 52 R 15(2) of the Federal Court Rules From Judgment of Mansfield J

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether special reasons existed under O 52 r 15(2) of the Federal Court Rules to extend time to file and serve a notice of appeal.' 'Whether the applicant for the extension adequately explained a delay of six and a half months.' 'Whether the proposed appeal had sufficient prospects of success to justify an extension of time.' 'Whether APRA had authority under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth) to institute the civil penalty proceedings.' 'Whether written ministerial consent under s 264(6) of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth) was required for the investigation notices under s 263.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an extension of time was refused because the six and a half month delay was not adequately explained by the sparse assertions of lack of funds and prior adverse advice, and the proposed grounds of appeal did not have sufficient prospects of success to make it just to allow an appeal out of time.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time be dismissed with costs, to be taxed if not agreed.']