Fischer, Thomas v Commonwealth of Australia [1997] FCA 744

Fischer, Thomas v Commonwealth of Australia [1997] FCA 744

As the application for judicial review was not filed within the prescribed period and no sufficient basis for an extension of time was established, and the issues applicant proposed to raise had already been determined or lacked merit, it was not just or equitable for the Court to allow an extension. Consequently, applicant was not entitled to reasons under s 13(1) of the ADJR Act.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 August 1997
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Application for Extension of Time and Reasons for Decision
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'judicial Review' 'termination of Employment' 'public Service Act' '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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Application for Extension of Time and Reasons for Decision

  1. 1 ['Whether the application for judicial review was lodged within time prescribed by s 11 of the ADJR Act' 'Whether the applicant is entitled to an extension of time to bring the application' 'Whether the applicant is entitled to reasons under s 13(1) of the ADJR Act']

Ratio Decidendi

As the application for judicial review was not filed within the prescribed period and no sufficient basis for an extension of time was established, and the issues applicant proposed to raise had already been determined or lacked merit, it was not just or equitable for the Court to allow an extension. Consequently, applicant was not entitled to reasons under s 13(1) of the ADJR Act.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • ['Application for extension of time dismissed' 'Application for order for reasons dismissed']