I. Notaras and K. L. Armstrong [2005] NSWIRComm 208

I. Notaras and K. L. Armstrong [2005] NSWIRComm 208

The application to extend time was refused because Ms Notaras gave no satisfactory explanation for the delay, no application for leave to appeal and appeal had been filed, no injustice was identified if the application were refused, and the Commission could not make a meaningful assessment of prospects of success in the absence of a filed appeal application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Application to Extend Time to Appeal Against a Decision of Commissioner Ritchie of 13 May 2005 / Ex Tempore Decision on Application to Extend Time; Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Not Yet Filed
Outcome
Application to extend time to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'unfair Dismissal' 'delay' 'discretionary Factors']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'unfair Dismissal' 'delay' 'discretionary Factors']

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 to Extend Time to Appeal Against a Decision of Commissioner Ritchie of 13 May 2005 / Ex Tempore Decision on Application to Extend Time; Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Not Yet Filed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time should be extended for Ms Notaras to appeal against the decision of Commissioner Ritchie.' 'Whether Ms Notaras provided a satisfactory explanation for not filing an application for leave to appeal and appeal within time.' 'Whether refusal to extend time would cause injustice to Ms Notaras.' 'Whether the Commission could assess the prospects of success of a proposed appeal where no application for leave to appeal and appeal had been filed.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application to extend time was refused because Ms Notaras gave no satisfactory explanation for the delay, no application for leave to appeal and appeal had been filed, no injustice was identified if the application were refused, and the Commission could not make a meaningful assessment of prospects of success in the absence of a filed appeal application.

Court Disposition

Application to extend time to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['The application to extend time to appeal is refused.' 'If a costs application is pursued by the respondent in these proceedings, submissions are to be filed and served by the respondent on Ms Notaras by 4pm Tuesday, 21 June, 2005.' 'The applicant, Ms Notaras, has twenty one days from 21 June 2005 in which to reply...