Re: HUNTER VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS PTY LIMITED; ANTHONY NEARY WALKER; MENDE BROWN And: THE HONOURABLE BARRY COHEN MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS AND ENVIROMENT No. G.426 of 1983 Practice - Administrative Law (1984) ADMN 96-034 / 3 FCR 344
COURT
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION Wilcox J.(1)
CATCHWORDS
Practice - ADJR Act - application for extension of time - principles applicable - adequacy of explanation of delay - relevance of nature of decision - lack of prejudice to respondent - lack of any element of unsettling other people or established practice - concession that application should not be refused on the basis of lack of substantive merit - principles relating to the costs of the application.
Administrative Law - Judicial review - Application for extension of time to make application for orders of review - Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), s. 11(1)(c).
HEADNOTE
Observations concerning the circumstances in which an extension of time for bringing an application for orders of review of administrative decisions will be ordered.
C.J. Bannon Q.C. and A.S. Martin, for the applicants.
D.M.J. Bennett Q.C. and L. Katz, for the respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
Solicitors for the applicants: Parish Patience.
Solicitor for the respondent: Australian Government Solicitor.
G.F.V.
ORDER
The time within which the applicants may bring application for review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 of the decisions relied upon, being the decisions respectively notified by the letter of 31 December 1982 and the telex of 22 February 1983, be extended so as to permit the filing of an Application for such relief within seven (7) days of the date of this Order, any such Application to be made returnable before me within seven (7) days of the date of such Application.
The applicants are to pay the respondent's costs of this application.
Orders accordingly.
JUDGE1
This application, as framed, seeks in substance two orders: first, an order that the respondent, who is the current Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, supply to the applicants a statement in writing pursuant to s.13 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, in relation to the decision that the film entitled "On the…
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.
Continue reading Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd & Ors v The Hon Barry Cohen, Minister for Home Affairs and Environment [1984] FCA 186 (3 FCR 344)
Case
[1984] FCA 186
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd sought an extension of time to bring an application for judicial review of certain decisions under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. The decisions in question were notified by a letter on 31 December 1982 and a telex on 22 February 1983. The application for an extension of time was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, presided over by Justice Murphy.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicants had provided an adequate explanation for the delay in filing the application for judicial review, whether the nature of the decisions impacted the assessment of the delay, and if the respondent would be prejudiced by granting the extension. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the delay would unsettle other people or established practices and if the application had any substantive merit. The applicants conceded that their application should not be dismissed based on a lack of substantive merit.
Justice Murphy determined that the applicants had provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay, noting that the nature of the decisions did not inherently affect the assessment of the delay. The court found no evidence that the respondent would be prejudiced by the extension and concluded that the delay would not unsettle other people or established practices. Given the concession that the application should not be refused on the basis of substantive merit, Justice Murphy granted the extension of time, allowing the applicants to file their application within seven days of the date of the order.
The court also ordered that Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd pay the respondent's costs for the application. This ruling underscores the importance of a reasonable explanation for delays in judicial review applications and the court's discretion in balancing the interests of the parties involved.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The time within which the applicants may bring application for review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 of the decisions relied upon, being the decisions respectively notified by the letter of 31 December 1982 and the telex of 22 February 1983, be extended so as to permit the filing of an Application for such relief within seven (7) days of the date of this Order, any such Application to be made returnable before me within seven (7) days of the date of such Application.
2.
The applicants are to pay the respondent's costs of this application.