IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
GENERAL DIVISION No. G 837 of 1988 NEW SOUTE WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
Between: GEOFFREY TEOMAS BRIOT
LEONARD NOEL BRIOTJOEN MAITLAND GRAHAME Applicants
And : - ARTEmR MANNING RIEDEL First Respondent
SEANE FRANCIS CASTLES
Second Respondent
CORAM: Einfeld J.
DATE: 31 March 1988
. . - PLACE: Sydney
EX-TEMPORE JUDGMENT
This is an application for an extension of time for the filing of an application for an order of review under the Administrative Decisions
overtaken him on 6 April. I am of the opinion that the reasons given by
(Judicial Review) Act 1977. The application was filed on 28 March 1988
in respect of a decision of a magistrate sitting in committal
proceedings under the New South Wales Justices Act 1902 on 15 July 1987. The application is therefore approximately seven months out of time. The application for extension of time was fixed for hearing in this Court on
6 April next. Eowever, senior counsel for the applicants has today
applied for an adjournment of that hearing for a maximum of seven days because of personal unbreakable professional commitments which have
| . | * |
- 2 -
senior counsel are understandable and justify the adjournment which he seeks. I therefore fix the hearing of the application for an extension of time
for Friday 8 April not before 12 noon. I will at least commence the hearing of the application on that day. This is subject only to my recommendation to the parties that in the light of what I have been told today, the more sensible and less costly course appears to be that the application for extension of time should be heard together with the substantive application for review. I am willing to make available time myself or to see if another judge can make available time in the first
week in May for that joint hearing to take place. However, in the
meantime, the matter will be heard on Friday 8 April 1988. l
certify that this and the
COPY of the preceding page$ are a true
Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour
Mr. Justice Einfeld
l
l
- AGLC
- Briot v Riedel [1988] FCA 854
- Case
- [1988] FCA 854
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicants' reasons for the delay in filing the extension application were sufficient to justify an adjournment and a potential extension of time. The court considered the applicants' explanation and the counsel's commitments, finding them to be understandable and justifiable. The court balanced the need for timely judicial review against the applicants' circumstances, leading to the decision to grant the adjournment and schedule a new hearing date. Additionally, the court suggested a joint hearing for the extension and substantive review applications to streamline the process and reduce costs for the parties.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.