Dickinson, Peter William v Comcare [1998] FCA 663

Dickinson, Peter William v Comcare [1998] FCA 663

The explanation for the substantial delay was unacceptable and the applicant failed to act promptly even after being provided with reasons or being advised on the proper process. The merits of the proposed appeal were weak. Accordingly, an extension of time should not be granted.

Parties
Applicant: Peter William Dickinson; Respondent: Comcare
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 May 1998
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Judgment on Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time to Appeal, Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Explanation for Delay, Conduct of Decision Maker
Administrative Law Extension of Time to Appeal Administrative Appeals Tribunal Explanation for Delay Conduct of Decision Maker

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter William Dickinson

Applicant

Comcare

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Judgment on Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an extension of time to appeal from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal should be granted in light of explanation for delay and conduct of decision maker

Ratio Decidendi

The explanation for the substantial delay was unacceptable and the applicant failed to act promptly even after being provided with reasons or being advised on the proper process. The merits of the proposed appeal were weak. Accordingly, an extension of time should not be granted.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application be dismissed.