Sleep v Repatriation Commission [2007] FCA 1890

Sleep v Repatriation Commission [2007] FCA 1890

The extension of time was refused because the proposed appeal had no arguable basis. The only question of law before the primary judge concerned the construction and application of s 52(1)(k) and (l) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth); the primary judge's construction was clearly correct, and the applicant's proposed grounds either did not impugn that construction or sought to raise matters outside the limited scope of the appeal. Granting an extension would serve no useful purpose because the foreshadowed appeal was doomed to failure.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Application Under O 52 R 15(2) of the Federal Court Rules for an Extension of Time to File and Serve a Notice of Appeal / Application Dismissed
Outcome
Application for an extension of time dismissed
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal on Question of Law' 'assets Test for Pension Calculation' "interpretation of S 52(1)(k) and (l) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (cth)"]
['administrative Law' "veterans' Entitlements" 'federal Court Procedure'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal on Question of Law' 'assets Test for Pension Calculation' "interpretation of S 52(1)(k) and (l) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (cth)"]

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application Under O 52 R 15(2) of the Federal Court Rules for an Extension of Time to File and Serve a Notice of Appeal / Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether special reasons existed under O 52 r 15(2) of the Federal Court Rules to extend time to file and serve a notice of appeal.' "Whether the foreshadowed appeal had any arguable ground of error in the primary judge's interpretation of s 52(1)(k) and (l) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth)." "Whether a standard motor vehicle and camper trailer purchased for the applicant's Outback trips were personal property designed for use by a disabled person or modified so that they could be used by a disabled person under s 52(1)(k) and (l)."]

Ratio Decidendi

The extension of time was refused because the proposed appeal had no arguable basis. The only question of law before the primary judge concerned the construction and application of s 52(1)(k) and (l) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth); the primary judge's construction was clearly correct, and the applicant's proposed grounds either did not impugn that construction or sought to raise matters outside the limited scope of the appeal. Granting an extension would serve no useful purpose because the foreshadowed appeal was doomed to failure.

Court Disposition

Application for an extension of time dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal be dismissed.']