Croker v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations

Case [2008] FCA 1549


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Croker v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2008] FCA 1549

CLAYTON ROBERT CROKER v SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS

NSD 1084 OF 2008

GRAHAM J
8 SEPTEMBER 2008
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1084 OF 2008

BETWEEN:

CLAYTON ROBERT CROKER
Applicant

AND:

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS
Respondent

JUDGE:

GRAHAM J

DATE OF ORDER:

8 SEPTEMBER 2008

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The time within which an application for leave to appeal from the interlocutory judgement of Stone J in proceedings NSD 2548 of 2007 may be brought be extended up to and including 21 July 2008.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1084 OF 2008

BETWEEN:

CLAYTON ROBERT CROKER
Applicant

AND:

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS
Respondent

JUDGE:

GRAHAM J

DATE:

8 SEPTEMBER 2008

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. Under Order 52, rule 10(2A)(b) an application for leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment of a single judge of the Court may be brought, provided that the necessary Notice of Motion is filed within seven days after the date on which the interlocutory judgment was pronounced or within such further time as the Court or a judge may allow. 

  2. In the present case, Stone J delivered a judgment on 27 June 2008 in which her Honour dismissed the application then before her as incompetent and ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the respondent.  Those orders were made in proceedings NSD 2548 of 2007.

  3. In the present matter, which is the subject of proceedings NSD 1084 of 2008, a Notice of Appeal was filed on 15 July 2008 from the judgment of her Honour.  Subsequently, on 21 July 2008 a Notice of Motion seeking a grant of leave to appeal from the judgment of Stone J was filed by the applicant with a view to allowing the Notice of Appeal filed 15 July 2008 to proceed.  Apart from seeking a grant of leave to appeal, the Notice of Motion filed 21 July 2008 sought an order that compliance with the time restriction for filing the Notice of Motion be dispensed with. 

  4. The position taken by the respondent is that the circumstances warrant an extension of time for the filing of the Notice of Motion and it is unnecessary to go into the detail of those circumstances, provided that the position of the respondent, in relation to opposing a grant of leave, is protected.

  5. It seems to me that the time within which the Motion should be filed should be extended up to and including 21 July 2008.  In so ordering, I do not intend to preclude any argument otherwise available to the respondent opposing the grant of leave which is sought.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Graham.

Associate:

Dated:       16 October 2008

The Applicant appeared in person.
Solicitor for the Respondent: D J Watson of the Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing: 8 September 2008
Date of Judgment: 8 September 2008
Details
AGLC
Croker v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2008] FCA 1549
Case
[2008] FCA 1549
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Croker v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, the dispute revolved around the extension of the time limit for an application for leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgement. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant, Croker, sought an extension of time to appeal a decision made by Stone J in proceedings NSD 2548 of 2007, which was a decision regarding employment and workplace relations.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the time limit for making an application for leave to appeal could be extended. The court had to consider the statutory provisions governing the time within which such an application could be brought, as well as any relevant case law and principles of equity. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the applicant had a sufficient basis for an extension, taking into account any relevant delays and the circumstances leading to those delays.

The court found that the applicant had a valid basis for seeking an extension of time. It acknowledged the statutory framework that provided for the possibility of extending the time limit under certain conditions. The court considered the reasons for the delay and found that they were not attributable to the applicant's lack of diligence. Furthermore, the court noted that allowing the extension would not prejudice the respondent and that it was in the interests of justice to grant the extension. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the applicant and extended the time limit up to and including 21 July 2008 for the application for leave to appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The time within which an application for leave to appeal from the interlocutory judgement of Stone J in proceedings NSD 2548 of 2007 may be brought be extended up to and including 21 July 2008.

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

GRAHAM J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: GRAHAM J

Full text does not contain this section.