Chandrasekaran v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2019] FCA 1490

Chandrasekaran v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2019] FCA 1490

Because the proposed extensions of time were by consent and the docket judge was on leave, the Court made those orders. Having reviewed the material and heard the applicant, the Court was unpersuaded that the proceeding should proceed otherwise than in accordance with the orders made by Wigney J on 29 August 2019 as varied, so the interlocutory application dated 1 September 2019 was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Proceeding / Duty Judge Hearing of Interlocutory Application Dated 1 September 2019 and Consent Extensions of Time
Outcome
Interlocutory application dated 1 September 2019 dismissed; consent extensions of time granted.
Legal Topics
['case Management Orders' 'summary Dismissal Application' 'extension of Time' 'interlocutory Application' 'amended Statement of Claim']
['administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights'] ['case Management Orders' 'summary Dismissal Application' 'extension of Time' 'interlocutory Application' 'amended Statement of Claim']

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

Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Proceeding / Duty Judge Hearing of Interlocutory Application Dated 1 September 2019 and Consent Extensions of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the time for compliance with Orders 1 and 3 of the orders made on 29 August 2019 should be extended by consent.' "Whether the applicant's interlocutory application dated 1 September 2019 should be allowed so that the foreshadowed summary dismissal application would be heard before 30 October 2019."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the proposed extensions of time were by consent and the docket judge was on leave, the Court made those orders. Having reviewed the material and heard the applicant, the Court was unpersuaded that the proceeding should proceed otherwise than in accordance with the orders made by Wigney J on 29 August 2019 as varied, so the interlocutory application dated 1 September 2019 was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application dated 1 September 2019 dismissed; consent extensions of time granted.

Orders

  • ['The time for compliance with Order 1 of the orders made on 29 August 2019 be extended to 9 September 2019.' 'The time for compliance with Order 3 of the orders made on 29 August 2019 be extended to 4:00pm on 16 September 2019.' 'The interlocutory application dated 1 September 2019 is dismissed.']