Nolan, Ross Samuel v Development Allowance Authority [1997] FCA 86

Nolan, Ross Samuel v Development Allowance Authority [1997] FCA 86

The extension of time was refused because the applicant's stated reasons were misconceived and did not address the legal issues on an appeal under s 44, the prospects of establishing that he was a person affected by the Authority's reviewable decision were highly unlikely because his aerocar project was too remote and speculative in relation to the Melbourne City Link Project and the statutory scheme, and granting the extension risked unsettling financing arrangements and investors connected with the infrastructure borrowing certificates.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 February 1997
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to File or Serve a Notice of Appeal From a Decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal / Federal Court Application Under S 44(2)a of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal on a Question of Law' 'standing' 'person Affected by a Reviewable Decision' 'infrastructure Borrowing Certificates']
['administrative Law'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal on a Question of Law' 'standing' 'person Affected by a Reviewable Decision' 'infrastructure Borrowing Certificates']

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 File or Serve a Notice of Appeal From a Decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal / Federal Court Application Under S 44(2)a of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to institute an appeal against the Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision.' 'Whether the applicant had sufficient prospects of establishing that he was a person affected by a reviewable decision of the Development Allowance Authority.' "Whether the applicant's reasons for not filing a notice of appeal in time justified an extension." 'Whether granting the extension would unsettle other people or established funding arrangements for the Melbourne City Link Project.']

Ratio Decidendi

The extension of time was refused because the applicant's stated reasons were misconceived and did not address the legal issues on an appeal under s 44, the prospects of establishing that he was a person affected by the Authority's reviewable decision were highly unlikely because his aerocar project was too remote and speculative in relation to the Melbourne City Link Project and the statutory scheme, and granting the extension risked unsettling financing arrangements and investors connected with the infrastructure borrowing certificates.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application by the applicant for extension of time to file or serve a notice of appeal from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal dated 10 December 1996 is dismissed.' "The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application and this day."]