Grabovsky v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2015] FCA 244

Grabovsky v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2015] FCA 244

The application for an extension of time was dismissed because the applicant's explanation for the 25 day delay was not altogether acceptable and, decisively, the proposed appeal was doomed to fail. The AAT had power under s 43(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) to set aside the decision under review and remit the matter for reconsideration, nothing in the social security legislation displaced that power, the Secretary was a proper respondent, and the allegations of bias, fraud, abuse of power, corrupt conduct and Legal Profession Act breaches were unsupported or legally irrelevant. Granting an extension would not be fair and equitable and would not promote the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to File a Notice of Appeal / Federal Court Application Before a Single Judge
Outcome
Application for extension of time dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'disability Support Pension' 'administrative Appeals Tribunal Powers' 'natural Justice and Bias' 'overarching Purpose of Civil Practice and Procedure']
['practice and Procedure' 'administrative Law' 'social Security Law'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'disability Support Pension' 'administrative Appeals Tribunal Powers' 'natural Justice and Bias' 'overarching Purpose of Civil Practice and Procedure']

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 File a Notice of Appeal / Federal Court Application Before a Single Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant gave an acceptable explanation for the delay in filing a notice of appeal.' 'Whether the proposed appeal had any merit or reasonable prospect of success.' 'Whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal had power to remit the matter for reconsideration in accordance with directions or recommendations.' 'Whether allegations of actual bias, apprehended bias, fraud, corrupt conduct and abuse of power were supported by evidence.' 'Whether the Secretary was a proper respondent and whether the Secretary represented the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an extension of time was dismissed because the applicant's explanation for the 25 day delay was not altogether acceptable and, decisively, the proposed appeal was doomed to fail. The AAT had power under s 43(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) to set aside the decision under review and remit the matter for reconsideration, nothing in the social security legislation displaced that power, the Secretary was a proper respondent, and the allegations of bias, fraud, abuse of power, corrupt conduct and Legal Profession Act breaches were unsupported or legally irrelevant. Granting an extension would not be fair and equitable and would not promote the...

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs."]