Cremona v Administrative Appeals Tribunal [2015] FCA 288

Cremona v Administrative Appeals Tribunal [2015] FCA 288

The applicant failed to identify any arguable question of law or error on the part of the AAT in exercising its discretion under s 42A(9) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act; the grounds raised were general, lacked evidentiary support or were not questions of law. No satisfactory explanation for the delay was given, but this was not determinative. The application for extension of time was dismissed as there was no prospect of success on appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time for Appeal / Decision on Extension of Time Application
Outcome
Application for extension of time dismissed with costs to the second respondent.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'discretionary Decision by Aat' 'federal Court Appellate Review' 'procedural Fairness']
['administrative Law'] ['extension of Time' 'discretionary Decision by Aat' 'federal Court Appellate Review' 'procedural Fairness']

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 for Appeal / Decision on Extension of Time Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to institute an appeal from the AAT' "Whether the AAT erred in exercising its discretion to refuse reinstatement of the applicant's substantive application" 'Whether the grounds of appeal disclose any question of law with prospects of success']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to identify any arguable question of law or error on the part of the AAT in exercising its discretion under s 42A(9) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act; the grounds raised were general, lacked evidentiary support or were not questions of law. No satisfactory explanation for the delay was given, but this was not determinative. The application for extension of time was dismissed as there was no prospect of success on appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time dismissed with costs to the second respondent.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's application for an extension of time dated 23 December 2014 is dismissed." "The applicant pay the second respondent's costs of the application."]