Kevin John THORPE V STATE TRANSIT AUTHORITY [1995] IRCA 724
The discretion to extend time was not exercised because the applicant's delay of approximately one year and four months after receipt of the termination letter was not adequately explained, and the evidence showed little to indicate that he took real steps to exercise whatever rights he may have had.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 13 December 1995
- Procedural Posture
- Application Pursuant to Section 170 EA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 Concerning Termination of Employment / Hearing Limited to Whether the Court Should Extend Time for Filing the Application
- Outcome
- Application dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- ['termination of Employment' 'extension of Time for Filing Application' 'retirement on Medical Grounds']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application Pursuant to Section 170 EA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 Concerning Termination of Employment / Hearing Limited to Whether the Court Should Extend Time for Filing the Application
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the Court should exercise its discretion to extend the time for filing the application.' 'Whether the applicant provided an adequate explanation for the delay in filing.']
Ratio Decidendi
The discretion to extend time was not exercised because the applicant's delay of approximately one year and four months after receipt of the termination letter was not adequately explained, and the evidence showed little to indicate that he took real steps to exercise whatever rights he may have had.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed.
Orders
- ['The application be dismissed.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment