Vel, Peter v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission & Anor [1997] FCA 262

Vel, Peter v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission & Anor [1997] FCA 262

Although the applicant's limited command of English, limited understanding of the Australian legal system, and continuing efforts to obtain reconsideration provided an acceptable explanation for the delay, it was not fair and equitable to extend time. The applicant sought review more than 5 years outside the prescribed period, the underlying discrimination events occurred over 10 years earlier, and a rehearing would cause obvious prejudice to the Commonwealth because relevant witnesses had died, could not be contacted, no longer worked for the Department of Defence, or had impaired recall. The application for an extension of time was therefore refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 April 1997
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Lodge an Application for an Order of Review Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) / Application for Extension of Time Under S11 of the ADJR Act
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) S11' 'racial Discrimination Complaint' 'prejudice Caused by Delay' 'limitation Periods']
['administrative Law' 'judicial Review' 'discrimination Law'] ['extension of Time' 'administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) S11' 'racial Discrimination Complaint' 'prejudice Caused by Delay' 'limitation Periods']

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 for Extension of Time to Lodge an Application for an Order of Review Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) / Application for Extension of Time Under S11 of the ADJR Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time under s11 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) to lodge an application for review of the President's decision dated 31 December 1990." 'Whether the applicant provided an acceptable explanation for lodging the application more than 5 years outside the prescribed period.' 'Whether it would be fair and equitable to extend time having regard to prejudice to the Commonwealth and the age of the events underlying the racial discrimination complaint.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the applicant's limited command of English, limited understanding of the Australian legal system, and continuing efforts to obtain reconsideration provided an acceptable explanation for the delay, it was not fair and equitable to extend time. The applicant sought review more than 5 years outside the prescribed period, the underlying discrimination events occurred over 10 years earlier, and a rehearing would cause obvious prejudice to the Commonwealth because relevant witnesses had died, could not be contacted, no longer worked for the Department of Defence, or had impaired recall. The application for an extension of time was therefore refused.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time within which the applicant may lodge an application for an order of review of the decision of the first respondent dated 31 December 1990 is refused.']