Hopkins v Repatriation Commission

Link copied
Case Copied 11 min read

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 2
Cases 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
Applicant

AND:

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
Applicant

AND:

REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent

JUDGE:

LANDER J

DATE:

19 APRIL 2011

PLACE:

ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. Order 15…

CaseChat AU logo

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
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
[2011] FCA 386
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Mr Hopkins, filed an application for an extension of time in which to lodge a notice of appeal against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The dispute centred on whether the AAT had made the appropriate findings on the evidence before it. The case was heard by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. Mr Hopkins sought an extension beyond the statutory time limit for filing the notice of appeal, arguing that there were likely grounds for success if granted such an extension.

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.