McArthur, M.H. v Art, Sport,Environment, Tourism & Territories, Min. for (Gary Punch) & Anor [1988] FCA 179

McArthur, M.H. v Art, Sport,Environment, Tourism & Territories, Min. for (Gary Punch) & Anor [1988] FCA 179

The applicant promptly sought the Ombudsman's assistance after being notified of the Minister's decision and promptly obtained legal assistance after the Ombudsman gave a final reply. The Ombudsman's intervention was sufficient to make the relevant authorities aware that the correctness of the decision was contested, and allowing the proposed proceeding would work no prejudice to the respondents. Although there were some public interest concerns and potential difficulties with the merits of the proposed substantive application, the applicant's evidence amounted to an acceptable explanation for the delay and it was fair and equitable in all the circumstances to grant the extension of time.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 April 1988
Procedural Posture
Application Under S.11(1)(c) of the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) for Extension of Time to Initiate a Proceeding for an Order of Review / Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Extension of time granted; applicant ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the application.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'taxi Licence' 'preferential Licence Conditions' 'ombudsman Complaint' 'exercise of Discretion']
['administrative Law' 'judicial Review' 'motor Vehicle Licensing'] ['extension of Time' 'taxi Licence' 'preferential Licence Conditions' 'ombudsman Complaint' 'exercise of Discretion']

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 Under S.11(1)(c) of the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) for Extension of Time to Initiate a Proceeding for an Order of Review / Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the time within which the applicant may bring a proceeding under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) should be extended.' 'Whether the applicant gave an acceptable explanation for the delay in seeking judicial review after pursuing assistance from the Ombudsman.' 'Whether granting an extension would prejudice the respondents or adversely affect the public interest.' 'Whether the merits of the proposed substantive application supported granting an extension of time.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant promptly sought the Ombudsman's assistance after being notified of the Minister's decision and promptly obtained legal assistance after the Ombudsman gave a final reply. The Ombudsman's intervention was sufficient to make the relevant authorities aware that the correctness of the decision was contested, and allowing the proposed proceeding would work no prejudice to the respondents. Although there were some public interest concerns and potential difficulties with the merits of the proposed substantive application, the applicant's evidence amounted to an acceptable explanation for the delay and it was fair and equitable in all the circumstances to grant the extension of time.

Court Disposition

Extension of time granted; applicant ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the application.

Orders

  • ['The time within which Malcolm Hugh McArthur may bring a proceeding under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) for an order of review in respect of the decision made by the Honourable Gordon Scholes, the Minister of State for Territories, on or about 30 June 1987 upon his request to be...