Buchanan v Administrative Appeals Tribunal [2013] FCA 1099

Buchanan v Administrative Appeals Tribunal [2013] FCA 1099

No errors of law identified in Tribunal decision; applicant's grounds fail to articulate proper questions of law; denial of reinstatement and refusal to adjourn did not constitute denial of natural justice or discrimination; neither appeal nor application for extension of time had merit or competence.

Parties
Applicant: Ian Buchanan; First Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal; Second Respondent: Commissioner of Taxation
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Interlocutory Applications (extension of Time and Appeal Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal and application for extension of time dismissed; costs ordered against applicant.
Legal Topics
Appeal Against Tribunal Decision, Errors of Law Under S 44 Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (cth), Extension of Time to File Notice, Adjournment Application, Procedural Fairness, Disability Discrimination
Administrative Law Practice and Procedure Appeal Against Tribunal Decision Errors of Law Under S 44 Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (cth) Extension of Time to File Notice Adjournment Application Procedural Fairness Disability Discrimination

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian Buchanan

Applicant

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

First Respondent

Commissioner of Taxation

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Interlocutory Applications (extension of Time and Appeal Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal erred in law under s 44 Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) in declining reinstatement
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was denied natural justice or subjected to discrimination
  3. 3 Whether the appeal was competent and raised proper questions of law

Ratio Decidendi

No errors of law identified in Tribunal decision; applicant's grounds fail to articulate proper questions of law; denial of reinstatement and refusal to adjourn did not constitute denial of natural justice or discrimination; neither appeal nor application for extension of time had merit or competence.

Court Disposition

Appeal and application for extension of time dismissed; costs ordered against applicant.

Orders

  • The application for an extension of time in which to file a notice of appeal filed 15 May 2013 be dismissed.
  • The notice of appeal filed 1 February 2013 be dismissed.