Roderick, David James v Telstra Corp Ltd [1998] FCA 900

Roderick, David James v Telstra Corp Ltd [1998] FCA 900

The application was dismissed because no error in law or fact by the primary judge was identified and the primary judge correctly exercised discretion in refusing to extend time for review. There was no reasonable prospect of injustice even if time were extended.

Parties
Applicant: david james roderick; Respondent: telstra corporation limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 July 1998
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal; Interlocutory Judgment on Refusal to Extend Time
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Judicial Discretion, Leave to Appeal, Review of Administrative Decisions
Administrative Law Extension of Time Judicial Discretion Leave to Appeal Review of Administrative Decisions

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

david james roderick

Applicant

telstra corporation limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal; Interlocutory Judgment on Refusal to Extend Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the primary judge erred in refusing an extension of time to seek review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977;
  2. 2 Whether there was an error in the exercise of discretion by the primary judge

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because no error in law or fact by the primary judge was identified and the primary judge correctly exercised discretion in refusing to extend time for review. There was no reasonable prospect of injustice even if time were extended.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application to the Full Court.