Hanna v Australian Trade Commission [2002] FCA 1514

Hanna v Australian Trade Commission [2002] FCA 1514

The motion was refused because the applicant provided no draft or indication of the likely content of any amended notice of appeal, had not taken advantage of the leave previously given, and the question of the respondent's objection to competency was moot; there was therefore no utility in extending time to seek review of the Registrar's orders.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Motion for Extension of Time to Seek Review of Orders Made by a Deputy District Registrar in an Appeal From the Administrative Appeals Tribunal / Motion Decided by the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
The applicant's motion for an extension of time was refused with costs.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' "review of Registrar's Orders" 'appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'amended Notice of Appeal' 'objection to Competency']
['administrative Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['extension of Time' "review of Registrar's Orders" 'appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'amended Notice of Appeal' 'objection to Competency']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Motion for Extension of Time to Seek Review of Orders Made by a Deputy District Registrar in an Appeal From the Administrative Appeals Tribunal / Motion Decided by the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time in which to apply for review of orders made by the Deputy District Registrar on 20 September 2002.' 'Whether there was any utility in extending time where the applicant had not provided any draft or indication of the content of an amended notice of appeal.' "Whether the Registrar's order allowing the respondent time to file a notice of objection to competency in relation to any amended notice of appeal caused injustice."]

Ratio Decidendi

The motion was refused because the applicant provided no draft or indication of the likely content of any amended notice of appeal, had not taken advantage of the leave previously given, and the question of the respondent's objection to competency was moot; there was therefore no utility in extending time to seek review of the Registrar's orders.

Court Disposition

The applicant's motion for an extension of time was refused with costs.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's motion, notice of which was filed on 14 November 2002, is refused." "The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs."]