Luck v University of Southern Queensland

Luck v University of Southern Queensland involved the University of Southern Queensland opposing Ms Luck's application for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. The appeal was in relation to judgments made by a Judge of the Federal Court on 21 April 2011, dismissing Ms Luck’s motions for review of decisions made by Registrars of the Court. Ms Luck sought an extension of time for various reasons, including delays in other proceedings and health issues. The University opposed the application, arguing that the delay was unreasonable and there was no likelihood of success on the appeal. The court was required to decide whether to grant the extension of time and whether to adjourn or stay the proceedings pending the determination of Ms Luck's applications for removal to the High Court.

The court considered the factors relevant to granting an extension of time under Rule 36.05 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, including the delay, the explanation for the delay, the prospects of success of the appeal, and the impact of the delay on the respondent. The court also considered the factors relevant to granting an adjournment or stay under section 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), including the importance of the issues, the likelihood of success of the removal application, and the impact of the adjournment on the proceedings. The court found that there was no real likelihood that the High Court would make an order for removal, and that the delay caused by an adjournment would be uncertain and inconsistent with the general principle that applications for extensions of time be made and dealt with promptly. The court also found that the prospects of success on the appeal were low, and that Ms Luck had failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing a notice of appeal.

The court refused the application for an adjournment or stay and dismissed the application for an extension of time. The court ordered that Ms Luck pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the proceeding. The court found that the application for an extension of time should not be adjourned whilst the removal applications were determined, and that the removal applications could be dealt with in the Federal Court. The court also found that the delay caused by an adjournment would be uncertain, and that extension of time applications such as these are properly made and determined expeditiously.