Kapeen Gangitano v Centrelink [2003] FCA 1549

Kapeen Gangitano v Centrelink [2003] FCA 1549

The extension of time was refused because the applicant did not explain with particularity what prevented her from filing during July 2003 and did not identify any relevant question of law for an appeal from the Tribunal's decision; therefore, despite the respondent's concession that it would suffer no prejudice, no proper purpose would be served by granting the extension.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Application for an Extension of Time to File and Serve a Notice of Appeal From a Decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal / Federal Court Application Refused
Outcome
Application refused; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'question of Law' 'costs']
['administrative Law' 'freedom of Information'] ['extension of Time' 'appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'question of Law' 'costs']

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 an Extension of Time to File and Serve a Notice of Appeal From a Decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal / Federal Court Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should grant an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.' 'Whether the applicant provided an adequate reason for not instituting the appeal within the time provided by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth).' 'Whether the proposed appeal identified a question of law.' 'Whether a costs order should be made against the applicant.']

Ratio Decidendi

The extension of time was refused because the applicant did not explain with particularity what prevented her from filing during July 2003 and did not identify any relevant question of law for an appeal from the Tribunal's decision; therefore, despite the respondent's concession that it would suffer no prejudice, no proper purpose would be served by granting the extension.

Court Disposition

Application refused; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal be refused.' 'There be no order as to costs.']