Craig Curran v Australian Postal Corporation - [2000] AATA 93

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2999] AATA 93

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No N1999/1757

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )

Re CRAIG CURRAN
Applicant

And AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION
Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member M D Allen Senior Member M J Sassella

Date14 February 2000
PlaceSydney

Decision      The application pursuant to subsection 29(7) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 to extend the time in which to make an application for review of a decision dated 12 November 1996 is refused.
  (Sgd)               M D ALLEN
  ..............................................
  Presiding Member
CATCHWORDS
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Application for extension of time. Reviewable decision made two years previously. Deliberate decision not to seek review at that time. No new material adduced by Applicant and Respondent significantly disadvantaged by inability to obtain contemporaneous medical reports. Application refused.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 - ssub29(7)
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 - s62, ssub65(4)

Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen 3 FCR 344
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority and Taylor 186 CLR 541
Lucic v Nolan and Others 45 ALR 411

REASONS FOR DECISION

14 February 2000 Senior Member M D Allen Senior Member M J Sassella

Pursuant to an application lodged with the Tribunal on 18 November 1999, the Applicant sought an extension of time in which to lodge an Application for Review of a reconsideration decision under s62 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 made by the Respondent on 12 November 1996.
Subsection 65(4) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 provides that an application for review of a reviewable decision shall be made within 60 days of the decision being communicated to the Applicant, whereas ssub29(7) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 reads inter alia that the Tribunal may, upon application, extend the time for the making of an application for review.
No qualifications are imposed by ssub29(7) or any other provisions of either the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 or the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 fettering the Tribunal's discretion to extend the time in which to make application for the review of a decision under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. (Cf para 176(4)(b) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986). The Tribunal has, however, consistently applied the non exclusive principles affecting the exercise of a discretion in which to extend time enunciated by Wilcox J in Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen 3 FCR 344 at 348, 349, namely:
"1. Although the section does not, in terms, place any onus of proof upon an applicant for extension an application has to be made. Special circumstances need not be shown but the court will not grant the application unless positively satisfied that it is proper so to do. The 'prescribed period' … is not to be ignored … Indeed, it is the prima facie rule that proceedings commenced outside that period will not be entertained … It is a pre-condition to the exercise of discretion in his favour that the applicant for extension show…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Craig Curran v Australian Postal Corporation

Details

AGLC: Craig Curran v Australian Postal Corporation [2000] AATA 93
Case: [2000] AATA 93
Decision Date: 14 February 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Craig Curran v Australian Postal Corporation, the applicant sought an extension of time to appeal a decision made two years earlier. The applicant, Craig Curran, had deliberately decided not to seek a review of the decision at the time it was made. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the applicant's application for an extension of time should be granted. The primary legal issue was whether the court should allow the applicant to appeal the decision outside the standard timeframe, given that the applicant had deliberately chosen not to seek a review at the appropriate time. The court also needed to consider whether any new material had been adduced by the applicant and whether the respondent would be significantly disadvantaged if the extension were granted.

The court found that the applicant had deliberately chosen not to seek a review at the appropriate time, and no new material had been adduced by the applicant. Furthermore, the respondent would be significantly disadvantaged by the inability to obtain contemporaneous medical reports. The court held that the deliberate decision not to seek a review at the time the decision was made, combined with the lack of new material and the significant disadvantage to the respondent, warranted refusal of the application for an extension of time. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the established timelines for seeking reviews and appeals, and that such timelines should not be lightly set aside.

The application for an extension of time was refused. The court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to established timelines for seeking reviews and appeals, and that such timelines should not be lightly set aside. The court's ruling highlighted the need for applicants to carefully consider their options and make timely decisions, particularly in cases involving medical reports and significant disadvantage to the respondent.

Orders