Chapman, Ernest Max McLeod v Reilly, John Daniel [1983] FCA 367

Chapman, Ernest Max McLeod v Reilly, John Daniel [1983] FCA 367

The applicant discharged the onus of satisfying the Court that an extension of time should be granted because he provided an acceptable explanation for the delay, it was fair and equitable in the circumstances to accede to the request, and the proposed substantive application appeared to raise some matters that were not, and could not be, in issue in the Supreme Court proceedings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 December 1983
Procedural Posture
Application Under Paragraph 11(1)(c) of the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 for Extension of Time to Make an Application Under Section 5 for an Order of Review / Extension of Time Application
Outcome
Application granted.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977' 'review of Decision Withdrawing Offer of Appointment to Australian Federal Police']
['administrative Law' 'judicial Review'] ['extension of Time' 'administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977' 'review of Decision Withdrawing Offer of Appointment to Australian Federal Police']

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 Paragraph 11(1)(c) of the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 for Extension of Time to Make an Application Under Section 5 for an Order of Review / Extension of Time Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether time should be extended under paragraph 11(1)(c) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 to seek review of the respondent's decision embodied in the letter dated 13 July 1983." 'Whether the applicant provided an acceptable explanation for the delay in commencing proceedings in the Federal Court.' 'Whether the merits of the proposed substantive application and the prior Supreme Court proceedings weighed against granting an extension.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant discharged the onus of satisfying the Court that an extension of time should be granted because he provided an acceptable explanation for the delay, it was fair and equitable in the circumstances to accede to the request, and the proposed substantive application appeared to raise some matters that were not, and could not be, in issue in the Supreme Court proceedings.

Court Disposition

Application granted.

Orders

  • ['The time within which to bring proceedings under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 for an order of review in respect of the decision of the respondent embodied in the letter dated 13 July 1983 be extended up to and including 1 November 1983.']