FFY v Children’s Guardian [2022] NSWCATAD 143

FFY v Children’s Guardian [2022] NSWCATAD 143

The Tribunal refused the extension of time because the application was about two years and seven months out of time, the delay was exceptionally long, the applicant's explanation was not persuasive, COVID-19 restrictions could not explain the initial period of delay, the Tribunal accepted evidence that the applicant had been told of his right to review on 14 March 2019, strict compliance with the time limit would not work an injustice, and public interest considerations supported refusal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review Concerning Refusal of a Working With Children Check Clearance / Application for Extension of Time to Lodge Application for Review
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused; proceedings dismissed.
Legal Topics
['working With Children Check Clearance' 'extension of Time' 'administrative Review' 'delay' 'public Interest in Finality']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection'] ['working With Children Check Clearance' 'extension of Time' 'administrative Review' 'delay' 'public Interest in Finality']

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

Administrative Review Concerning Refusal of a Working With Children Check Clearance / Application for Extension of Time to Lodge Application for Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to apply for administrative review of the Children's Guardian's refusal of his working with children check clearance." 'Whether the applicant provided an adequate explanation for a delay of about two years and seven months.' 'Whether public interest considerations and strict compliance with time limits favoured refusal of the extension.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal refused the extension of time because the application was about two years and seven months out of time, the delay was exceptionally long, the applicant's explanation was not persuasive, COVID-19 restrictions could not explain the initial period of delay, the Tribunal accepted evidence that the applicant had been told of his right to review on 14 March 2019, strict compliance with the time limit would not work an injustice, and public interest considerations supported refusal.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused; proceedings dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's application for an extension of time to lodge his application is refused." 'The proceedings are dismissed.']