Giniotis v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [2000] FCA 334

Giniotis v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [2000] FCA 334

The applicant did not provide an acceptable explanation for the delay in lodging her ADJR Act application and did not show that it was fair and equitable to extend time. Although the respondent did not identify prejudice, that was insufficient, and the limited material on the merits indicated that the President had relied on a proper ground, namely that the complaints were made more than 12 months after the acts complained of. The Court therefore refused to exercise its discretion to extend time.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Application for Review Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) / Application for Extension of Time to Lodge the Review Application
Outcome
Application for an extension of time refused.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'judicial Review' 'human Rights Complaints' 'disability Discrimination' 'race Discrimination']
['administrative Law' 'discrimination Law'] ['extension of Time' 'judicial Review' 'human Rights Complaints' 'disability Discrimination' 'race Discrimination']

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 Review Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) / Application for Extension of Time to Lodge the Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to lodge an application for review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth).' 'Whether the applicant provided an acceptable explanation for the delay and whether it was fair and equitable to extend time.' 'Whether the absence of prejudice to the respondent and the merits of the proposed substantive application supported an extension of time.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not provide an acceptable explanation for the delay in lodging her ADJR Act application and did not show that it was fair and equitable to extend time. Although the respondent did not identify prejudice, that was insufficient, and the limited material on the merits indicated that the President had relied on a proper ground, namely that the complaints were made more than 12 months after the acts complained of. The Court therefore refused to exercise its discretion to extend time.

Court Disposition

Application for an extension of time refused.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time be refused.']