Rivera v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2005] FCA 1741

Rivera v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2005] FCA 1741

The Court did not need to decide whether HREOC's communication of its decision to Mr Cummins at Morgan Ardino & Co on 5 May 2005 was furnishing to the Applicant for the purposes of s11 of the ADJR Act. Because all respondents neither supported nor opposed the extension and no submission was made that the proposed case was obviously untenable or doomed to fail, the time for bringing the amended application was extended up to and including 31 October 2005. As the Applicant made no further claims against the Second and Third Respondents and consented to dismissal against them, the amended application was dismissed as against those respondents.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Amended Application for an Order of Review Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) / Application for Extension of Time to File the Amended Application; Dismissal Sought as Against the Second and Third Respondents
Outcome
Extension of time granted; amended application dismissed as against the Second and Third Respondents.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'adjr Act Prescribed Period' 'hreoc Inquiry Report' 'furnishing of Decision to Applicant' 'dismissal Against Respondents']
['administrative Law' 'human Rights' 'judicial Review'] ['extension of Time' 'adjr Act Prescribed Period' 'hreoc Inquiry Report' 'furnishing of Decision to Applicant' 'dismissal Against Respondents']

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

Amended Application for an Order of Review Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) / Application for Extension of Time to File the Amended Application; Dismissal Sought as Against the Second and Third Respondents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the time within which the Applicant may bring his amended application should be extended up to and including 31 October 2005.' "Whether providing HREOC's decision to the Applicant's legal representative constituted furnishing to the Applicant of a document setting out the terms of the decision under s11 of the ADJR Act." 'Whether the amended application should be dismissed as against the Second and Third Respondents.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court did not need to decide whether HREOC's communication of its decision to Mr Cummins at Morgan Ardino & Co on 5 May 2005 was furnishing to the Applicant for the purposes of s11 of the ADJR Act. Because all respondents neither supported nor opposed the extension and no submission was made that the proposed case was obviously untenable or doomed to fail, the time for bringing the amended application was extended up to and including 31 October 2005. As the Applicant made no further claims against the Second and Third Respondents and consented to dismissal against them, the amended application was dismissed as against those respondents.

Court Disposition

Extension of time granted; amended application dismissed as against the Second and Third Respondents.

Orders

  • ['The time within which the Applicant may bring his amended application be extended up to and including 31 October 2005.' 'The amended application be dismissed as against the Second and Third Respondents.']