Croker v TAFE Commission [2009] FCA 1024

Croker v TAFE Commission [2009] FCA 1024

The applicant did not provide an adequate explanation for the entire period of delay and, further, has not disclosed an arguable case that his disability was relevant to his exclusion from enrolment; therefore, the application for extension of time should be refused.

Parties
Applicant: Clayton Robert Croker; Respondent: TAFE Commission
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time Under S 46 Po(2) HREOC Act / Interlocutory; Application for Extension of Time Refused
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused with costs.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Disability Discrimination, Federal Procedure, Summary Dismissal
Practice and Procedure Anti Discrimination Human Rights Extension of Time Disability Discrimination Federal Procedure Summary Dismissal

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clayton Robert Croker

Applicant

TAFE Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time Under S 46 Po(2) HREOC Act / Interlocutory; Application for Extension of Time Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was adequate explanation for the applicant's delay in filing the application
  2. 2 Whether there is prejudice to the respondent if extension granted
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has an arguable case for unlawful discrimination

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not provide an adequate explanation for the entire period of delay and, further, has not disclosed an arguable case that his disability was relevant to his exclusion from enrolment; therefore, the application for extension of time should be refused.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused with costs.

Orders

  • The applicant's application for an extension of time in which to file his originating application is refused.
  • The applicant pay the respondent's costs including those of opposing the application for extension of time.