Re: Tomkins Commercial & Industrial Builders Pty Ltd

This matter came before a Hearing Officer, acting as a delegate of the Registrar, concerning a removal application. The Removal Opponent sought an extension of time to file a notice of intention to oppose the removal application. The dispute arose from the Removal Opponent's failure to file the notice within the prescribed timeframe, which they attributed to a series of resignations by key personnel within their legal team and a mistaken belief regarding the filing deadline.

The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether to exercise discretion under regulation 9.12 of the relevant regulations to grant the Removal Opponent an extension of time to file its notice of intention to oppose. This required the Hearing Officer to consider the grounds for the request, as stipulated in regulation 9.11(4), which include an error or omission by the person or their agent, or circumstances beyond the person's control. Crucially, if the request was made after the filing period had ended, the Registrar needed to be satisfied that there was sufficient reason for the delay in making the request itself.

The Hearing Officer's reasoning focused on the factual circumstances presented by the Removal Opponent. It was acknowledged that a series of resignations by employees of the Removal Opponent's legal representatives, Sparke Helmore Lawyers, led to a lack of awareness of the filing deadline. The Removal Opponent's representative stated that she mistakenly believed certain individuals were still employed and receiving correspondence, and failed to verify the deadline. The Hearing Officer found that these circumstances, including the errors and omissions by the agent and the impact of staff departures, constituted sufficient grounds to justify an extension of time.

Consequently, the Hearing Officer exercised discretion in favour of the Removal Opponent and granted a one-month extension of time for the filing of the Notice of Intention to Oppose.