Griffiths v Australian Postal Corporation [2008] FCA 486

Griffiths v Australian Postal Corporation [2008] FCA 486

The application for an extension of time was refused because there was no adequate or satisfactory explanation for the delay, the issue sought to be raised was not properly raised before the Tribunal or primary judge, and the case was not a suitable vehicle for determination of the purported important legal issue. Even if the legal issue was arguable, it would not necessarily affect the outcome of the costs order in dispute.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Determination of Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused; applicant to pay costs of the application.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time for Appeal' 'tribunal Jurisdiction' 'costs Orders' 'safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act']
['administrative Law' 'employment Law'] ['extension of Time for Appeal' 'tribunal Jurisdiction' 'costs Orders' 'safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act']

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 for Extension of Time to Appeal / Determination of Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an extension of time should be granted to file and serve a notice of appeal relating to a costs order of the Tribunal under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth)' 'Whether the application is a proper vehicle to ventilate questions about the authority of the Tribunal under the Act']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an extension of time was refused because there was no adequate or satisfactory explanation for the delay, the issue sought to be raised was not properly raised before the Tribunal or primary judge, and the case was not a suitable vehicle for determination of the purported important legal issue. Even if the legal issue was arguable, it would not necessarily affect the outcome of the costs order in dispute.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused; applicant to pay costs of the application.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time in which to file and serve a notice of appeal be refused.' 'The applicant pay the costs of the application.']