FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Hopkins v Repatriation Commission [2011] FCA 386
Citation: Hopkins v Repatriation Commission [2011] FCA 386 Appeal from: Application for extension of time: Hopkins v Repatriation Commission [2009] FCA 1037 Parties: FRANCIS JAMES HOPKINS v REPATRIATION COMMISSION File number: SAD 28 of 2011 Judge: LANDER J Date of judgment: 19 April 2011 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for extension of time in which to file a notice of appeal – whether grounds of appeal likely to succeed if extension granted – whether or not Administrative Appeals Tribunal had made appropriate findings on the evidence before it – whether additional evidence brought forward by the applicant sufficient to persuade the Full Court to overturn the Judge’s order and remit the matter to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Held: Application for extension of time in which to file a notice of appeal refused
Legislation: Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) ss 24(1)(c), 24(2)(a), 24(2)(b)
Federal Court Rules O 15 r 2Cases cited: Hopkins v Repatriation Commission [2009] FCA 1037 referred to Date of hearing: 7 March 2011 Date of last submissions: 1 April 2011 Place: Adelaide Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 34 Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondent: Mr P d’Assumpcao Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
SAD 28 of 2011
BETWEEN: FRANCIS JAMES HOPKINS
ApplicantAND: REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
JUDGE:
LANDER J
DATE OF ORDER:
19 APRIL 2011
WHERE MADE:
ADELAIDE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application for an extension of time be refused.
2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
SAD 28 of 2011
BETWEEN: FRANCIS JAMES HOPKINS
ApplicantAND: REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
JUDGE:
LANDER J
DATE:
19 APRIL 2011
PLACE:
ADELAIDE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an application for an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal from an order of a judge of this Court dismissing the applicant’s appeal under s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) and an order that the applicant pay the respondent its costs of the application.
The order complained of was made on 16 September 2009. The application to extend the time for filing and serving a notice of appeal was made on 18 February 2011, some 17 months after the orders were made.
Order 52 rule 15 of the Federal Court Rules provides that a notice of appeal should be filed and served within 21 days after the date when the judgment appealed from was pronounced or any later date fixed for that purpose by the Court appealed from, or such further time as allowed by the Court.
Order 15…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Hopkins v Repatriation Commission 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2011] FCA 386
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether the grounds for appeal were likely to succeed if the extension was granted, and whether the AAT had made appropriate findings on the evidence presented. Additionally, the court had to assess if the additional evidence brought forward by Mr Hopkins was sufficient to persuade the Full Court to overturn the primary judge's order and remit the matter back to the AAT.
The Full Court considered the arguments and found that the grounds for appeal were not likely to succeed. The court held that the AAT had indeed made appropriate findings on the evidence before it and that the additional evidence presented by Mr Hopkins was not compelling enough to warrant overturning the primary judge's order. Consequently, the court refused the application for an extension of time and ordered that Mr Hopkins pay the respondent's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application for an extension of time be refused.
2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.
Note:
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.