Ekermawi v Australian Human Rights Commission [2018] FCA 166

Ekermawi v Australian Human Rights Commission [2018] FCA 166

It was unnecessary to decide whether the extension of time application was itself a proceeding under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) for the purposes of s 18(1). To the extent leave was necessary, leave should be granted under r 9.12 because, if an extension were granted, there would clearly be an AD(JR) Act proceeding in which the Attorney-General could intervene; the Court and applicant would be assisted by the Attorney-General's position on the merits; intervention would avoid placing the Australian Human Rights Commission in the position of protagonist; the applicant did not oppose intervention; and leave would promote the just and efficient resolution of...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Administrative Law Application for Extension of Time to Apply for Review Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) / Case Management Hearing; Application Concerning Intervention by the Commonwealth Attorney General
Outcome
Leave to intervene granted to the extent necessary.
Legal Topics
['statutory Intervention by the Attorney General' 'leave to Intervene' 'extension of Time for Judicial Review' 'termination of Australian Human Rights Commission Complaints']
['administrative Law' 'human Rights' 'federal Civil Procedure'] ['statutory Intervention by the Attorney General' 'leave to Intervene' 'extension of Time for Judicial Review' 'termination of Australian Human Rights Commission Complaints']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Administrative Law Application for Extension of Time to Apply for Review Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) / Case Management Hearing; Application Concerning Intervention by the Commonwealth Attorney General

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Commonwealth Attorney-General required leave to intervene under s 18(1) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth).' 'Whether an application for extension of time to seek an order for review is a proceeding under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) for the purposes of s 18(1).' 'Whether, to the extent necessary, leave should be granted under r 9.12 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).']

Ratio Decidendi

It was unnecessary to decide whether the extension of time application was itself a proceeding under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) for the purposes of s 18(1). To the extent leave was necessary, leave should be granted under r 9.12 because, if an extension were granted, there would clearly be an AD(JR) Act proceeding in which the Attorney-General could intervene; the Court and applicant would be assisted by the Attorney-General's position on the merits; intervention would avoid placing the Australian Human Rights Commission in the position of protagonist; the applicant did not oppose intervention; and leave would promote the just and efficient resolution of...

Court Disposition

Leave to intervene granted to the extent necessary.

Orders

  • ['To the extent necessary, the Commonwealth Attorney-General be granted leave to intervene in the proceedings under r 9.12 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).']