Caldwell, Peter James v Smith, William John [1983] FCA 216

Caldwell, Peter James v Smith, William John [1983] FCA 216

Regulation 141(2), on its proper construction, requires that an application to extend the period referred to in sub-regulation 141(1) must be made to the Director before the expiration of that period. Any application made after expiry cannot be granted.

Parties
Applicant: Peter James Caldwell; Respondent: William John Smith
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 August 1983
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Public Service Disciplinary Proceedings, Extension of Time for Appeal, Interpretation of Regulation 141 of Public Service Regulations
Administrative Law Public Service Disciplinary Proceedings Extension of Time for Appeal Interpretation of Regulation 141 of Public Service Regulations

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter James Caldwell

Applicant

William John Smith

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director can extend the period for lodging an appeal under Public Service Regulation 141(2) if the application for extension is made after expiration of the appeal period

Ratio Decidendi

Regulation 141(2), on its proper construction, requires that an application to extend the period referred to in sub-regulation 141(1) must be made to the Director before the expiration of that period. Any application made after expiry cannot be granted.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application be dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the costs of the respondent of and incidental to the application.