Briot v Riedel

Case [1988] FCA 854


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GENERAL DIVISION No. G 837 of 1988
NEW SOUTE WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
Between:  GEOFFREY TEOMAS BRIOT
LEONARD NOEL BRIOT
JOEN 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

Details
AGLC
Briot v Riedel [1988] FCA 854
Case
[1988] FCA 854
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Court of Australia considered an application for an extension of time for filing an application for an order of review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. The applicants, Geoffrey Thomas Briot, Leonard Noel Briot, and Joen Maitland Grahame, sought an extension for filing an application related to a decision made by a magistrate during committal proceedings under the New South Wales Justices Act 1902 on 15 July 1987. The application was filed on 28 March 1988, approximately seven months out of the statutory time limit. The application for an extension was scheduled for 6 April, but the applicants' senior counsel sought an adjournment due to personal and professional commitments. The court granted the adjournment and scheduled the hearing for 8 April, recommending a joint hearing of the extension application and the substantive review application in the first week of May.

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.