Knight v Commonwealth Ombudsman [2023] FCA 868

Extension of time was refused because the applicant did not provide an adequate explanation for the very substantial delay in filing the appeal, and the evidence presented was insufficient to allow the Court to be positively satisfied that it was in the interests of justice to grant the extension.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 31 July 2023
Procedural Posture: Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Application Determined on the Papers
Outcome: Application dismissed
Legal Topics: ['extension of Time' 'appeals' 'delay' 'federal Court Procedures']

['administrative Law' 'practice and Procedure'] ['extension of Time' 'appeals' 'delay' 'federal Court Procedures']

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

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Application Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether an extension of time for filing a notice of appeal should be granted given the considerable and largely unexplained delay' 'Whether the interests of justice require an extension of time in light of the lack of adequate explanation for the delay']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

['The application filed on 23 December 2022 is dismissed.' "The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs as agreed or, failing agreement, to be assessed by a Registrar on a lump sum basis pursuant to r 40.02(b) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)."]