Mazukov v University of Tasmania

[2000] FCA 1091

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Mazukov v University of Tasmania [2000] FCA 1091

NO QUESTION OF PRINCIPLE

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) s11(3)

Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth)

Glasson v Parkes Rural Distributions Proprietary Limited (1984) 155 CLR 234 applied

IVAN ANTONOV MAZUKOV v THE UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA

T 14 of 2000

MARSHALL J
HOBART
4 AUGUST 2000

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
TASMANIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	T 14 of 2000

BETWEEN:	IVAN ANTONOV MAZUKOV APPLICANT
AND:	THE UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	MARSHALL J
DATE OF ORDER:	4 AUGUST 2000
WHERE MADE:	HOBART

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant be refused leave for an extension of time within which to bring the application.

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.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
TASMANIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	T 14 of 2000

BETWEEN:	IVAN ANTONOV MAZUKOV APPLICANT
AND:	THE UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	MARSHALL J
DATE:	4 AUGUST 2000
PLACE:	HOBART

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This matter was called on for directions this morning. Mr M O’Farrell, of counsel, appeared for the respondent. There was no appearance by the applicant. Mr O’Farrell sought that the Court decline to extend the time within which the application could be made.

2. The application was purportedly made under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (“the Act”). The application was filed on 5 July 2000 in respect of a decision made by the respondent on 23 February 2000, some 14 weeks after the expiry of the 28 day time limit provided for in s11(3) of the Act.

3. I have no jurisdiction to deal with the application unless an order is made for an extension of time. One matter critical to the exercise of that discretion is the prospect of success of the application. I have formed the view that I should not extend time as the application is fundamentally flawed and has no prospect of success. The decision made by Mr Blow QC (as he then was) on behalf of the respondent was not a decision made “under an enactment”. It was not a decision made under a Federal Act. See s38 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) and Glasson v Parkes Rural Distributions Proprietary Limited (1984) 155 CLR 234 at 241 per Gibbs CJ, Mason, Murphy, Wilson and Brennan JJ.

1. The Court will order as follows:

   1.   The applicant be refused leave for an extension of time within which to bring the application.

   2.   The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Marshall.

Associate:

Dated:             8 August 2000

There was no appearance by the applicant.
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr M O'Farrell
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Dobson Mitchell & Allport
Date of Directions Hearing:	4 August 2000
Date of Judgment:	4 August 2000 (ex-tempore as revised from transcript)