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.
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Application for Extension of Time and Reasons for Decision
Legal Issues
- 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']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment