Giniotis v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [2000] FCA 1954

Giniotis v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [2000] FCA 1954

No error or miscarriage in the exercise of discretion by the primary judge in refusing an extension of time; no merits shown to justify leave to appeal.

Parties
Applicant: Stella Stase Giniotis; Respondent: Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 August 2000
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Decision on Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Judicial Review, Discretionary Refusal of Extension, Leave to Appeal, Procedural Fairness
Administrative Law Extension of Time Judicial Review Discretionary Refusal of Extension Leave to Appeal Procedural Fairness

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stella Stase Giniotis

Applicant

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Decision on Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted from a refusal to allow further time under s 11(1)(c) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) for lodgment of an application for an order of review
  2. 2 Whether there was an error in the exercise of discretion in refusing an extension of time

Ratio Decidendi

No error or miscarriage in the exercise of discretion by the primary judge in refusing an extension of time; no merits shown to justify leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is refused.