Fisher v Roads and Maritime Services [2018] NSWCA 295

Fisher v Roads and Maritime Services [2018] NSWCA 295

The summons seeking leave to appeal was filed three months out of time, no explanation for the delay was provided, and although the respondents suffered no prejudice, the proposed appeal raised no issue of principle and had no realistic prospects of success because the primary judge correctly rejected the asserted grounds of judicial review. It was therefore appropriate to refuse an extension of time.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time Within Which to Seek Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Application From Judgment of Harrison J Dismissing Judicial Review Proceedings
Outcome
Extension of time refused; applicant ordered to pay costs of Roads and Maritime Services in this Court.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'driver Authority Cancellation' 'jurisdictional Error' 'error of Law on the Face of the Record' 'procedural Fairness' 'apprehended Bias' 'realistic Prospects of Success']
['civil Procedure' 'judicial Review' 'administrative Law' 'transport Law'] ['leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'driver Authority Cancellation' 'jurisdictional Error' 'error of Law on the Face of the Record' 'procedural Fairness' 'apprehended Bias' 'realistic Prospects of Success']

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 Within Which to Seek Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Application From Judgment of Harrison J Dismissing Judicial Review Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to seek leave to appeal from the judgment delivered on 31 January 2018.' 'Whether the proposed appeal raised an issue of principle or had realistic prospects of success.' "Whether the Supreme Court judicial review judgment disclosed error in relation to the decisions of the Tribunal or NCAT concerning cancellation of the applicant's driver authority."]

Ratio Decidendi

The summons seeking leave to appeal was filed three months out of time, no explanation for the delay was provided, and although the respondents suffered no prejudice, the proposed appeal raised no issue of principle and had no realistic prospects of success because the primary judge correctly rejected the asserted grounds of judicial review. It was therefore appropriate to refuse an extension of time.

Court Disposition

Extension of time refused; applicant ordered to pay costs of Roads and Maritime Services in this Court.

Orders

  • ['Refuse the applicant an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal from the judgment of Harrison J delivered on 31 January 2018.' 'Order that the applicant pay the costs of Roads and Maritime Services in this Court.']