Deighton, Raymond John v Telstra Corporation Ltd [1997] FCA 436

Deighton, Raymond John v Telstra Corporation Ltd [1997] FCA 436

The delay was reasonably explained and prejudice to the respondent was slight, however, the merits of the proposed appeal were poor and no reasonable prospects of success were disclosed; therefore, granting an extension of time would unfairly impose on the respondent and waste court resources.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Raymond John Deighton; Respondent: Telstra Corporation Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 May 1997
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Decision of Judge at First Instance Out of Time
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeal, Settlement, Compensation
Practice and Procedure Administrative Law Extension of Time Appeal Settlement Compensation

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raymond John Deighton

Appellant

Telstra Corporation Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Decision of Judge at First Instance Out of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to appeal out of time against the decision of Carr J which dismissed the appeal from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal
  2. 2 Whether there was a reasonable explanation for the delay
  3. 3 Whether the merits of the proposed appeal were sufficient to justify an extension of time

Ratio Decidendi

The delay was reasonably explained and prejudice to the respondent was slight, however, the merits of the proposed appeal were poor and no reasonable prospects of success were disclosed; therefore, granting an extension of time would unfairly impose on the respondent and waste court resources.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The Application is dismissed.
  • The Appellant to pay the Respondent's costs of the application.