Dobson v Australian Postal Corporation - [2013] FCA 320

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Dobson v Australian Postal Corporation [2013] FCA 320

Citation: Dobson v Australian Postal Corporation [2013] FCA 320

Appeal from: Application for extension of time: Dobson v Australian Postal Corporation [2012] FMCA 1016

Parties: RORY PAUL DOBSON v AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

File number: QUD 596 of 2012

Judge: LOGAN J

Date of judgment: 11 April 2013

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for extension of time pursuant to r 35.13 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – extension sought for leave to appeal against summary dismissal of proceeding – whether explanation for delay acceptable – whether the prospects of a grant of leave to appeal in the event that an extension was granted were such as to warrant an extension – whether a substantial injustice would be done to the applicant upon the assumption that the decision was wrong and whether the judgment was attended with sufficient doubt to warrant a grant of leave.

Legislation: Constitution Ch III
Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) ss 6, 15
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 24, 31A
Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth) ss 12, 17A
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 35.13(a), r 35.14(3), r 36.03
Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth) O 11, r 16, O 81, r 5
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth) r 13.10, r 41.02A

Cases cited: Boston Commercial Services Pty Ltd v GE Capital Finance Australasia Pty Ltd (2006) 236 ALR 720 cited
Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225 considered
Décor Corp Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397 cited
Dobson v Australian Postal Corporation [2012] FMCA 1016 considered
Ejueyitsi v Bond University [2012] FCA 1514 considered
Fair Work Ombudsman v Toyota Material Handling (NSW) Pty Limited (2012) 295 ALR 129 cited
Ioannou v Commonwealth of Australia [2012] FCA 1228 cited
O’Donoghue v Australian Information Commissioner [2012] FCA 1219 cited
Rana v University of South Australia (2004) 136 FCR 344 cited
R v Tupou; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2005] QCA 179 cited
Scott v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2007] FCA 2055 cited
Singh v The Owners Strata Plan No. 11723 (No. 4) [2012] FCA 1180 cited
Spencer v The Commonwealth (2009) 241 CLR 118 considered
Tinkler v Elliott [2012] All ER (D) 94; [2012] EWCA Civ 1289 considered
Walker v The State of Victoria (2011) 279 ALR 284 considered
Walker v State of Victoria [2012] FCAFC 38 cited
White Industries Australia Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2007) 160 FCR 298 considered

Date of hearing: 8 February 2013

Place: Brisbane

Division: GENERAL DIVISION

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 52

Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms S Moody

Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore Lawyers

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

QUD 596 of 2012

BETWEEN:
RORY PAUL DOBSON
Applicant

AND:
AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION
Respondent

JUDGE:

LOGAN J

DATE OF ORDER:

11 APRIL 2013

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Dobson v Australian Postal Corporation and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] FCA 320
Decision Date: 11 April 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court, the applicant, Dobson, sought an extension of time to appeal the dismissal of his case against the Australian Postal Corporation. The primary dispute involved the applicant's claim for damages due to an alleged breach of contract by the respondent. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether Dobson's explanation for the delay in filing his application for an extension of time was acceptable and whether the prospects of a grant of leave to appeal, should the extension be granted, were sufficient to warrant it. Additionally, the court had to consider whether a substantial injustice would be caused to Dobson if the decision was incorrect and whether the judgment was sufficiently doubtful to warrant a grant of leave.

The court meticulously examined the reasons provided by Dobson for the delay in filing his application for an extension. It also evaluated the merits of Dobson's case to determine the likelihood of success if leave to appeal was granted. The court concluded that Dobson's explanation for the delay was not satisfactory and found that the prospects of a successful appeal were minimal. Furthermore, the court held that no substantial injustice would result from the denial of the extension, and the judgment did not exhibit sufficient doubt to merit a grant of leave.

Consequently, the Federal Court dismissed Dobson's application for an extension of time to appeal the dismissal of his case. The court ordered that Dobson pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the application, to be taxed if not agreed, in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for an extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal is dismissed.

2. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application to be taxed if not agreed.

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.

Citation:		Dobson v Australian Postal Corporation [2013] FCA 320
Appeal from:		Application for extension of time: Dobson v Australian Postal Corporation [2012] FMCA 1016
Parties:		RORY PAUL DOBSON v AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION
File number:		QUD 596 of 2012
Judge:		LOGAN J
Date of judgment:		11 April 2013
Catchwords:		PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for extension of time pursuant to r 35.13 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – extension sought for leave to appeal against summary dismissal of proceeding – whether explanation for delay acceptable – whether the prospects of a grant of leave to appeal in the event that an extension was granted were such as to warrant an extension – whether a substantial injustice would be done to the applicant upon the assumption that the decision was wrong and whether the judgment was attended with sufficient doubt to warrant a grant of leave.
Legislation:		Constitution Ch III Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) ss 6, 15 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 24, 31A Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth) ss 12, 17A Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 35.13(a), r 35.14(3), r 36.03 Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth) O 11, r 16, O 81, r 5 Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth) r 13.10, r 41.02A
Cases cited:		Boston Commercial Services Pty Ltd v GE Capital Finance Australasia Pty Ltd (2006) 236 ALR 720 cited Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225 considered Décor Corp Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397 cited Dobson v Australian Postal Corporation [2012] FMCA 1016 considered Ejueyitsi v Bond University [2012] FCA 1514 considered Fair Work Ombudsman v Toyota Material Handling (NSW) Pty Limited (2012) 295 ALR 129 cited Ioannou v Commonwealth of Australia [2012] FCA 1228 cited O’Donoghue v Australian Information Commissioner [2012] FCA 1219 cited Rana v University of South Australia (2004) 136 FCR 344 cited R v Tupou; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2005] QCA 179 cited Scott v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2007] FCA 2055 cited Singh v The Owners Strata Plan No. 11723 (No. 4) [2012] FCA 1180 cited Spencer v The Commonwealth (2009) 241 CLR 118 considered Tinkler v Elliott [2012] All ER (D) 94; [2012] EWCA Civ 1289 considered Walker v The State of Victoria (2011) 279 ALR 284 considered Walker v State of Victoria [2012] FCAFC 38 cited White Industries Australia Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2007) 160 FCR 298 considered
Date of hearing:	8 February 2013
Place:	Brisbane
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	52
Counsel for the Applicant:	The Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms S Moody
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore Lawyers

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	QUD 596 of 2012

BETWEEN:	RORY PAUL DOBSON Applicant
AND:	AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION Respondent

JUDGE:	LOGAN J
DATE OF ORDER:	11 APRIL 2013
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE