Abbas v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2022] NSWCATOD 115

Abbas v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2022] NSWCATOD 115

The extension of time was refused because the delay was significant, inadequately explained, and the substantive application had no prospect of success as the Applicant remained a disqualified person under the Property and Stock Agents Act 2002 owing to outstanding debt; there is no discretion to grant the application in such circumstances.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review / Application for Extension of Time to File Application for Review
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused; application for review dismissed
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'administrative Review' 'disqualification Under Property and Stock Agents Act']
['administrative Law'] ['extension of Time' 'administrative Review' 'disqualification Under Property and Stock Agents Act']

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 Review / Application for Extension of Time to File Application for Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to permit the application for review to be brought out of time.']

Ratio Decidendi

The extension of time was refused because the delay was significant, inadequately explained, and the substantive application had no prospect of success as the Applicant remained a disqualified person under the Property and Stock Agents Act 2002 owing to outstanding debt; there is no discretion to grant the application in such circumstances.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused; application for review dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application for review is dismissed.']