Karakus v Australian Prudential Regulation Authority [2000] FCA 1129

Karakus v Australian Prudential Regulation Authority [2000] FCA 1129

Both applications were incompetent because they failed to specify particular reviewable decisions or conduct under the ADJR Act and no basis existed for extension of time or leave to amend; granting relief would be futile as there would be no practical result.

Parties
Applicant: Ulgen Karakus; Respondent: Australian Prudential Regulation Authority
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 August 2000
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Applications / Objection to Competency; Final Orders
Outcome
Applications dismissed as incompetent; applicant ordered to pay respondent's costs.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Objection to Competency, Extension of Time, Leave to Amend, Employment Termination, Disciplinary Action
Administrative Law Employment Law Judicial Review Objection to Competency Extension of Time Leave to Amend Employment Termination Disciplinary Action

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ulgen Karakus

Applicant

Australian Prudential Regulation Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Applications / Objection to Competency; Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applications under ADJR Act are competent
  2. 2 Whether extensions of time should be granted for judicial review
  3. 3 Whether leave to amend applications should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

Both applications were incompetent because they failed to specify particular reviewable decisions or conduct under the ADJR Act and no basis existed for extension of time or leave to amend; granting relief would be futile as there would be no practical result.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed as incompetent; applicant ordered to pay respondent's costs.

Orders

  • In proceeding N 315 of 2000: The application be dismissed.
  • In proceeding N 315 of 2000: The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application.