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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
- AGLC
- Croker v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2008] FCA 1549
- Case
- [2008] FCA 1549
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: GRAHAM J
Full text does not contain this section.