FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Krajniw v Hunt [2017] FCA 483
Appeal from: Application for extension of time: Krajniw v Minister for Environment [2016] FCA 141 File number: QUD 58 of 2017 Judge: LOGAN J Date of judgment: 2 May 2017 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – summary dismissal – no reasonable prospect of success – whether Judge erred – consideration of judicial discretion
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for extension of time to seek leave to appeal against orders made in original jurisdiction – requirement for explanation of delay – proposed appeal considered – principles on application for leave to appeal – extension of time refused
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW – alleged contraventions of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)
Legislation: Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) ss 18, 19, 20, 67A, 75, 158A, 475
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 24, 31A
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 26.01
Cases cited: Ejueyitsi v Bond University [2012] FCA 1514
Finch v The Heat Group (No 3) [2017] FCA 64
Huang v University of New South Wales [2014] FCA 1337
Ioannou v Commonwealth of Australia (Department of Human Services) [2012] FCA 1228
Décor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397
Tinkler v Elliott [2012] EWCA Civ 1289
Date of hearing: 2 May 2017 Registry: Queensland Division: General Division National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 22 Counsel for the Appellant: The appellant appeared in person Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr B McGlade Solicitor for the First Respondent: HWL Ebsworth Counsel for the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Respondents: Ms J Brien Solicitor for the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Respondents: Crown Law Counsel for the Eleventh, Twelfth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Respondents: Mr JG Lyons Solicitor for the Eleventh, Twelfth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Respondents: Brisbane City Legal Practice Counsel for the Fifteenth Respondent: Mr M Steele Solicitor for the Fifteenth Respondent: BMD Group ORDERS
QUD 58 of 2017 BETWEEN: TONY KRAJNIW
Appellant
AND: GREG HUNT MP, FORMER MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENT
First Respondent
ANNASTACIA PALASZCZUK MP, PREMIER QLD
Second Respondent
JACKIE TRAD MP, DEPUTY PREMIER MINISTER FOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND PLANNING (and others named in the Schedule)
Third Respondent
JUDGE:
LOGAN J
DATE OF ORDER:
2 MAY 2017
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application be dismissed.
2.The appellant pay to the respondents’ the costs of and incidental to the appeal, to be taxed, if not agreed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(REVISED FROM TRANSCRIPT)LOGAN J:
On 25 February 2016, Collier J ordered, pursuant to s 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (Federal Court of Australia Act) and r 26.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), that judgment be entered for the respondents against the present applicant, Mr Tony Krajniw in respect of a proceeding commenced by…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Krajniw v Hunt 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
- [2017] FCA 483
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the primary judge had erred in finding that there was no reasonable prospect of success in Krajniw's case and whether the court should grant an extension of time for Krajniw to seek leave to appeal. The court considered the principles governing the exercise of judicial discretion in such matters, the requirement for an explanation of delay in filing the appeal, and the criteria for granting leave to appeal. The court also assessed the merits of the proposed appeal and the overall circumstances of the case.
In its reasoning, the court found that the primary judge's assessment of the prospects of success was not an error. The court held that the appellant had not provided a sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, nor had he demonstrated that there were exceptional circumstances justifying an extension of time. The court concluded that Krajniw's proposed appeal did not meet the necessary criteria for leave to appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the application for an extension of time was refused. The court also ordered that Krajniw pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the appeal, to be taxed if not agreed.
In summary, the Federal Court dismissed Krajniw's appeal against the summary dismissal of his case and also refused his application for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal. The court ordered Krajniw to pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the appeal, to be taxed if not agreed.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application be dismissed.
2. The appellant pay to the respondents’ the costs of and incidental to the appeal, to be taxed, if not agreed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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.