Hickey v Australian Telecommunications Commission
Case
•
[1983] FCA 96
•20 MAY 1983
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Hickey, Darrell & Ors v Australian Telecommunications Commission [1983] FCA 96 ((1983) 72 FLR 291)
[1983] FCA 96
20 MAY 1983
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Hickey v Australian Telecommunications Commission involved the applicants seeking an extension of time to lodge their application for judicial review. The applicants, Hickey and others, were employees of the respondent, the Australian Telecommunications Commission, who were subject to "stand-down" orders following declarations under section 43A of the Telecommunications Act 1975. The dispute was brought before the court under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977.
The legal issues before the court included whether the applicants had demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay in lodging their application and whether the delay was undue. The principles relevant to granting an extension of time for such applications were also considered, with a particular focus on the concept of undue delay and its impact on the administration of justice.
The court found that the applicants had not demonstrated sufficient cause for their delay and that their delay was indeed undue. Consequently, the application for an extension of time was dismissed. The court further ordered that the applicants pay the respondent's costs of the application, emphasising the importance of timely judicial review proceedings. The final orders were that the application be dismissed and that the applicants pay the respondent's costs.
The legal issues before the court included whether the applicants had demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay in lodging their application and whether the delay was undue. The principles relevant to granting an extension of time for such applications were also considered, with a particular focus on the concept of undue delay and its impact on the administration of justice.
The court found that the applicants had not demonstrated sufficient cause for their delay and that their delay was indeed undue. Consequently, the application for an extension of time was dismissed. The court further ordered that the applicants pay the respondent's costs of the application, emphasising the importance of timely judicial review proceedings. The final orders were that the application be dismissed and that the applicants pay the respondent's costs.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Limitation Periods
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Hickey, Darrell & Ors v Australian Telecommunications Commission [1983] FCA 96 ((1983) 72 FLR 291)
Most Recent Citation
Avx20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FedCFamC2G 308
Cases Citing This Decision
20
EQL17 v Minister for Immigration
[2020] FCCA 1512
Talwar and Sharma
[2018] FCCA 483
Cases Cited
5
Statutory Material Cited
0
SZTES v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection
[2015] FCA 719
Ferrus v Qantas Airways Ltd
[2006] FCA 812
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor
[1996] HCA 25