Hanna v Australian Trade Commission

[2002] FCA 1514

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Hanna v Australian Trade Commission [2002] FCA 1514

FAYEZ PHILIPPE HANNA v AUSTRALIAN TRADE COMMISSION

N 888 of 2002

WHITLAM J
22 NOVEMBER 2002
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 888 of 2002

BETWEEN:	FAYEZ PHILIPPE HANNA APPLICANT
AND:	AUSTRALIAN TRADE COMMISSION RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	WHITLAM J
DATE OF ORDER:	22 NOVEMBER 2002
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.   The applicant’s motion, notice of which was filed on 14 November 2002, is refused.

2.   The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs.

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	N 888 of 2002

BETWEEN:	FAYEZ PHILIPPE HANNA APPLICANT
AND:	AUSTRALIAN TRADE COMMISSION RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	WHITLAM J
DATE:	22 NOVEMBER 2002
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is a motion for an extension of time in which to seek a review of an exercise of power by a Deputy District Registrar (“the Registrar”) on 20 September 2002.  On that date the Registrar made orders to the following effect:

   (1)if necessary, the time for instituting this appeal from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal be extended to 23 August 2002,

   (2)the applicant be given leave to amend his notice of appeal by 11 October 2002, and

   (3)within 14 days of receiving any amended notice of appeal, the respondent have leave to file a notice of objection to competency in relation to any ground stated in the amended notice of appeal.

2. On 18 October 2002 the applicant sought to file notice of a motion for the review of those orders.  The application was out of time.  The applicant has now by motion, notice of which was filed on 14 November 2002, applied for an extension of time in which to apply for the review.

3. The applicant submits that it would be unjust not to permit him to have an extension of time in which to review those orders.  He says now that he wishes to file an amended notice of appeal.  However he propounds no draft of an amended notice of appeal.  Indeed, he has given no indication at all of the likely content of any amended notice of appeal.  There is thus no utility whatsoever in allowing further time to make any application.

4. Furthermore, as to the third of the orders referred to in [1] above, the applicant submits that there is an injustice in its terms.  I do not agree.  Why should the respondent be bound by an amended notice of appeal that it has not seen?  In truth, all the Registrar did was to fix a time limit within which the respondent was to notify the applicant of any objection as to the competency of any aspect of the questions of law or grounds of appeal raised in any amended notice of appeal.  Since the applicant has not taken advantage of the leave that he was given, the question is entirely moot.  There would be no utility whatsoever in extending the time in order to allow him to pursue a motion to review the orders made by the Registrar. 

5. Accordingly, the applicant’s motion is refused with costs.

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

Associate:

Dated:             4 December 2002

The applicant appeared in person.

Solicitor for the applicant:	Mr G J Peek of the Australian Government Solicitor
Date of hearing:	22 November 2002
Date of judgment:	22 November 2002