Lonergan v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2017] NSWCATAD 187

Lonergan v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2017] NSWCATAD 187

The Tribunal dismissed the application to extend time because the review application was filed more than 18 months out of time, the applicant gave no adequate explanation for the delay and did not act within a reasonable period after becoming aware of the decision, he provided no material showing the substantive review may have merit, there were no apparent public interest considerations favouring an extension, and strict compliance with the rules would not be unfair or unjust in the circumstances.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of a Decision to Refuse a Tattooist Licence; Application to Extend Time / On the Papers Application to Extend Time
Outcome
The application to extend time for the lodging of the application is dismissed.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'delay' 'tattooist Licence Refusal' 'fit and Proper Person' 'administrative Review']
['administrative Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['extension of Time' 'delay' 'tattooist Licence Refusal' 'fit and Proper Person' 'administrative Review']

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 Review of a Decision to Refuse a Tattooist Licence; Application to Extend Time / On the Papers Application to Extend Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal should extend the time for filing an application for review of the decision refusing a tattooist licence.' 'Whether the applicant provided an adequate explanation for a delay of over 18 months.' "Whether the applicant's prospects of success, prejudice, public interest and injustice supported an extension of time."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal dismissed the application to extend time because the review application was filed more than 18 months out of time, the applicant gave no adequate explanation for the delay and did not act within a reasonable period after becoming aware of the decision, he provided no material showing the substantive review may have merit, there were no apparent public interest considerations favouring an extension, and strict compliance with the rules would not be unfair or unjust in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

The application to extend time for the lodging of the application is dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's application to extend time for the lodging of the application is dismissed."]