Fuller, Donald v Minister for Primary Industries & Energy & Anor [1997] FCA 908

Fuller, Donald v Minister for Primary Industries & Energy & Anor [1997] FCA 908

The application for extension of time was refused because the applicant failed to identify clear, succinct and exhaustive grounds for judicial review as required, with most arguments directed to the merits of the decisions rather than reviewable errors of law. Delay was attributable to the applicant's own choices, and the deficiencies in the application rendered the matter unsuitable for extension of time or grant of interlocutory relief.

Parties
Applicant: Donald Fuller; First Respondent: Minister for Primary Industries and Energy; Second Respondent: National Registration Authority
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 August 1997
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time and Interlocutory Relief in Judicial Review Proceedings / Determination of Application for Extension of Time and Interlocutory Relief
Outcome
Application for extension of time and interlocutory relief dismissed.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Standing, Judicial Review Under ADJR Act, Merits Review Vs. Judicial Review, Requirements for Specificity of Grounds
Administrative Law Biological Control Agricultural and Veterinary Chemical Regulation Extension of Time Standing Judicial Review Under ADJR Act Merits Review Vs. Judicial Review Requirements for Specificity of Grounds

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Donald Fuller

Applicant

Minister for Primary Industries and Energy

First Respondent

National Registration Authority

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time and Interlocutory Relief in Judicial Review Proceedings / Determination of Application for Extension of Time and Interlocutory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extension of time should be granted to bring application for judicial review under ADJR Act
  2. 2 Whether applicant's case properly states grounds of judicial review rather than merits review
  3. 3 Whether grounds for interlocutory relief are established

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time was refused because the applicant failed to identify clear, succinct and exhaustive grounds for judicial review as required, with most arguments directed to the merits of the decisions rather than reviewable errors of law. Delay was attributable to the applicant's own choices, and the deficiencies in the application rendered the matter unsuitable for extension of time or grant of interlocutory relief.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time and interlocutory relief dismissed.

Orders

  • Motion for extension of time and interlocutory relief is dismissed.
  • Applicant to pay respondents' costs of the motion.