Taylor v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [2001] FCA 852

Taylor v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [2001] FCA 852

Although the delay of nine and a half weeks was significant and partly reflected a lack of urgency, it was explained, no prejudice to the Police Service was shown, and the proposed review was arguable though weak. Fairness also required extending time for the Police Service to bring its own application if the applicant received an extension. The extensions of time were therefore granted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Application Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) for Extension of Time to Seek Orders of Review / Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Extension of time granted for the applicant and the second respondent; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'extension of Time' 'human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Decision' 'disability Discrimination' 'employer Status Under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (cth)']
['administrative Law' 'discrimination Law' 'employment Law'] ['judicial Review' 'extension of Time' 'human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Decision' 'disability Discrimination' 'employer Status Under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (cth)']

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 Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) for Extension of Time to Seek Orders of Review / Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time should be extended for the applicant to bring an application under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) for review of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission decision made on 4 September 2000.' 'Whether the applicant had an acceptable explanation for the nine and a half week delay.' 'Whether the proposed substantive application had sufficient merit to justify an extension of time.' 'Whether the second respondent should also be given time to bring its own application for review if the applicant obtained an extension.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the delay of nine and a half weeks was significant and partly reflected a lack of urgency, it was explained, no prejudice to the Police Service was shown, and the proposed review was arguable though weak. Fairness also required extending time for the Police Service to bring its own application if the applicant received an extension. The extensions of time were therefore granted.

Court Disposition

Extension of time granted for the applicant and the second respondent; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['The time limited for the Applicant and the Second Respondent to file applications for orders of review of the decision of the First Respondent made 4 September 2000 is extended to 18 July 2001.' 'Costs of each of the applications for an extension of time are reserved to be determined in the substantive...