Luck v Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink [2008] FCA 1506

Luck v Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink [2008] FCA 1506

The extension of time was refused because the proposed s 44 appeal was bound to fail: the applicant identified no question of law and the Tribunal's procedural directions were not final or determinative decisions for the purposes of s 44. The proposed ADJR Act proceeding also had no reasonable prospects because the...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Application for an Extension of Time Within Which to Commence a Proceeding Appealing From Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decisions and Seeking Review Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) / Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused with costs.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'question of Law' 'reviewable Decision' 'procedural Directions']
['administrative Law' 'freedom of Information' 'judicial Review'] ['extension of Time' 'appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'question of Law' 'reviewable Decision' 'procedural Directions']

Source-derived case record

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 for an Extension of Time Within Which to Commence a Proceeding Appealing From Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decisions and Seeking Review Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) / Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time should be extended for the applicant to appeal from directions and determinations made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 13 May 2008.' 'Whether the proposed appeal under s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) identified a question of law and was from a decision of the Tribunal.' 'Whether the applicant identified reviewable decisions or conduct under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth).']

Ratio Decidendi

The extension of time was refused because the proposed s 44 appeal was bound to fail: the applicant identified no question of law and the Tribunal's procedural directions were not final or determinative decisions for the purposes of s 44. The proposed ADJR Act proceeding also had no reasonable prospects because the applicant did not identify any relevant substantive, final and operative decisions, and did not articulate grounds of review connected to the Senior Member's conduct.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused with costs.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's application for an extension of time within which to commence a proceeding is refused." "The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application including reserved costs."]