FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Danagher v Child Support Registrar [2014] FCA 1408
Citation: Danagher v Child Support Registrar [2014] FCA 1408 Appeal from: Confidential and Child Support Registrar [2014] AATA 220 Parties: MICHAEL DANAGHER v CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR and KATHLEEN ALLOWAY File number: WAD 121 of 2014 Judge: GILMOUR J Date of judgment: 22 December 2014 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – appeal from Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) – Tribunal found that appellant’s application was not lodged within the prescribed time – Tribunal dismissed application for extension of time – whether or not Tribunal erred in failing to properly construe the meaning and effect of s 29(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) – whether or not Tribunal erred in failing to give reasons – whether or not Tribunal erred in failing to apply the applicable test for an extension of time application – relevant principles relating to applications for extension of time – whether or not Tribunal erred in having regard to irrelevant considerations and failing to have regard to relevant considerations - whether or not there was a denial of procedural fairness - principles relating to appeals against an exercise of discretion Legislation: Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ss 29, 33(1)(c), 44
Acts Interpretation Act1901 (Cth) ss 28A, 29(1)
Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth) s 103X
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 160Cases cited: Abebe v The Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 197 CLR 510
Comcare v Post Logistics Australasia Pty Ltd (2012) 207 FCR 178
F Hoffmann-La Roche & Co AG v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [1975] AC 295
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Gallo v Dawson (1990) 93 ALR 479
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen (1984) 3 FCR 344
Lovell v Lovell (1950) 81 CLR 513
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Indatissa (2001) 64 ALD 1
Monteleone v The Owners of the Old Soap Factory [2007] WASCA 79
Mukto v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1801
NADR v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 167
Ovens v Civil Aviation Safety Authority (2010) 119 ALD 519
Re Johnson and Commonwealth of Australia [1990] AATA 1
SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2006) 228 CLR 152
SZHZD v Minister for Immigration [2008] FMCA 4
Waterford v The Commonwealth of Australia (1987) 163 CLR 54Date of hearing: 23 September 2014 Date of last submissions: 7 October 2014 Place: Perth Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 78 Counsel for the Appellant: Ms KJ Levy Solicitor for the Appellant: Danaghers Commercial and Corporate Lawyers Counsel for the Respondent: Mr PR Macliver Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Counsel for the Other Party: The Other Party appeared in person
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
WAD 121 of 2014
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN: MICHAEL DANAGHER
Appellant
Continue reading Danagher v Child Support Registrar
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Danagher v Child Support Registrar [2014] FCA 1408
- Case
- [2014] FCA 1408
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Danagher, sought to appeal a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) which dismissed his application for an extension of time to lodge a notice of appeal. The Tribunal found that the appellant's application for an extension of time was not lodged within the prescribed period. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application for an extension of time. Danagher challenged the Tribunal's decision on several grounds, including whether the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of section 29(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), whether the Tribunal failed to provide reasons, and whether the Tribunal applied the correct test for an extension of time application. Additionally, it was argued that the Tribunal had considered irrelevant factors and failed to consider relevant ones, resulting in a denial of procedural fairness.
The court examined the Tribunal's decision to determine whether there were any errors in its interpretation or application of the law. It was noted that the Tribunal must correctly construe the meaning and effect of statutory provisions, including section 29(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), and apply the relevant principles when considering an application for an extension of time. The court assessed whether the Tribunal provided adequate reasons for its decision and whether it applied the appropriate legal test. Furthermore, the court considered whether the Tribunal had erred in its evaluation of the application by taking irrelevant factors into account and neglecting relevant ones, which could have amounted to a denial of procedural fairness.
The court found that the Tribunal had not erred in its interpretation or application of the law. It determined that the Tribunal correctly construed the statutory provision and applied the relevant principles in evaluating the application for an extension of time. The court also found that the Tribunal had provided sufficient reasons for its decision and that there was no denial of procedural fairness. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs. The decision underscores the importance of correctly interpreting and applying statutory provisions and principles when considering applications for extensions of time, as well as the necessity of providing adequate reasons for decisions and avoiding irrelevant considerations.
The court examined the Tribunal's decision to determine whether there were any errors in its interpretation or application of the law. It was noted that the Tribunal must correctly construe the meaning and effect of statutory provisions, including section 29(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), and apply the relevant principles when considering an application for an extension of time. The court assessed whether the Tribunal provided adequate reasons for its decision and whether it applied the appropriate legal test. Furthermore, the court considered whether the Tribunal had erred in its evaluation of the application by taking irrelevant factors into account and neglecting relevant ones, which could have amounted to a denial of procedural fairness.
The court found that the Tribunal had not erred in its interpretation or application of the law. It determined that the Tribunal correctly construed the statutory provision and applied the relevant principles in evaluating the application for an extension of time. The court also found that the Tribunal had provided sufficient reasons for its decision and that there was no denial of procedural fairness. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs. The decision underscores the importance of correctly interpreting and applying statutory provisions and principles when considering applications for extensions of time, as well as the necessity of providing adequate reasons for decisions and avoiding irrelevant considerations.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be dismissed.
2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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.