Krajniw v Hunt [2017] FCA 483

Krajniw v Hunt [2017] FCA 483

The application was dismissed because the delay, even on a benign view, was about 10 months and was not adequately explained, and in any event the proposed appeal had no sufficient prospect of success. The s 75 decision remained on foot and engaged statutory exceptions to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) provisions relied on, the Federal Court lacked jurisdiction over the wider state planning and environment grievances, and the primary judge was correct to summarily dispose of the originating application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Seek Leave to Appeal Against Summary Judgment / Federal Court of Australia, Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['summary Dismissal' 'no Reasonable Prospect of Success' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (cth)' 'controlled Action Decision' 'federal Jurisdiction']
['practice and Procedure' 'environmental Law'] ['summary Dismissal' 'no Reasonable Prospect of Success' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (cth)' 'controlled Action Decision' 'federal Jurisdiction']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to Seek Leave to Appeal Against Summary Judgment / Federal Court of Australia, Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an extension of time should be granted for the appellant to seek leave to appeal against the summary judgment made on 25 February 2016.' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the interlocutory judgment entered under s 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and r 26.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).' 'Whether the proposed appeal had sufficient prospects in light of the s 75 decision that the proposed action was not a controlled action under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth).' "Whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction over the appellant's broader grievances concerning state planning and environment legislation and decisions of Brisbane City Council or State officers."]

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the delay, even on a benign view, was about 10 months and was not adequately explained, and in any event the proposed appeal had no sufficient prospect of success. The s 75 decision remained on foot and engaged statutory exceptions to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) provisions relied on, the Federal Court lacked jurisdiction over the wider state planning and environment grievances, and the primary judge was correct to summarily dispose of the originating application.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' "The appellant pay to the respondents' the costs of and incidental to the appeal, to be taxed, if not agreed."]