Schultz, Lancelot Franklin v Beldon, Edmund Michael

C A T C H W O R D S

ADPIINISYL\TiViZ

LAW

J u d i c i a l r e v i e w

- Extens ion of

time

i n which

t o l o d g e a p p l i c a t i o n

review

o f

dec i s ion

o f ,

Promotions

Appeal

Comnittee

r e a s o n s f o r d e l a y

need

for

f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e

delay of822 days.

' -

Adq? in i s t r a t iv$ Dec i s ions ( Jud ic i a l '

Review)

Act 1977

, i

3 N I

Lucic v . Nolan & Ors.

119d2) 4,5 A.L.R.

4 1 1

Becerra v. Fowell h Anor.

(unreported decis ion

o f

Morling

18.

.83)

LANCELOT ?RAX?RLIM SCHUiTZ V . EDMU?TD HICKAEL EELDON & ORS .

I I

ACT

G 7 1 of

1983

Neaves J.

Canberra

10 November 1983

I N TEE FZXRPL COUXT OF AUSTMLIA )

)

AUSTRALIM CAPITAL

TEZRITORY

N O . ACT ~ 7 1

o f

1983

DISTRICT KEGISTRY	) )
GENERAL DIVISION	)

BETWEEN :

WCELOT FRAXICLIX

S C m T Z

A p p l i c a n t

-	AND :	, EDMUND
IAN EAMISH GAWAGE and

M I C W L BELDEN ,

JOHN STEWART

FRASER

BOK4.N

F i r s t

R e s p o n d e n t s

I -

A m

IAN STANI,EY LINCOLN

Second Rbsponden t

-	ROBERT WILLIAPf
ROBERT JOHN YOU?IG a n d

COLE

AND :

JOHH VINCENT MONAGIWN

T h i r d R e s p o n d e n t s

O R D E R

JUDGE MAKING ORDER:	Neaves J.
DATE O F ORDER:	10 November 1983
WHERE MADE:	Canberra

THE

COURT

ORDERS

THAT:

The

time

w i t h i n which

t o ' l o d g e t h e

a p p l i c a t i o n f o r

order

r e v i e w b e e x t e n d e d u p t o a n d

including

6 Sep tember 1983.

I N TXE $Z:DEUL COURT OF AUSTrWLIA )

AUSTIWLIAX

CATITAL

TERRITGRY

No. ACT G71 o f 1983

DISTRICT REGISTRY	)
)
GEXERkL DIVISION	)

BETLXEN :

LANCELOT

F W L L I N SCHULTZ

A p p l i c a n t

EDMUND MICHAEL

BELDEN,

IM HAIYISH GAENAGE and

JOHN STETWIT FEWSER BOWAN

F i r s t

R e s p o n d e n t s

-	AND :	IAN STANLEY	LINCOLN
Second Responden t

AND :

ROBERT WILLIAM COLE,

ROBERT JO'rDJ

YOLTG a n d

J O H N VIXCENT

MONAGHAN

Third

Responden t s

CORAM :	Neaves J.
-	DATE :	10 November 1983

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

T h e a p p l i c a n t ,

H r .

L a n c e l o t F r a n k l i n

Schul tz ,

has

a p p l i e d t o

th i s

C o u r t u n d e r p a r a g r a p h

11(1) (c) of

t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e D e c i s i o n s

( J u d i c i a l

Review)

Act

1977

€ o r

e x t e n s i o n of

the t ime within which

t o l o d g e an

application under that Act for

an order of review in

respecz 05 a decision of the first respondents, being the members of a Promotions Appeal Comittee constituted

under the Publlc Service

Act 1922, allowing

an appeal by

Xr. Lan Stanley Lincoln, the second respondent, against

the applicant's provisional promotion

to a position of

Foreign Affairs Officer, Class

4 , in the Department

Foreign Affeirs. The extension sought is

up to and includ-

ing 6 September 1983 when the application for the order	of
review was filed.

The applicant was provisionally promoted to the

position or' Foreign Affairs Officer, Class

4 , on 5 August

1982. Eleven other officers were provisionally promoted

at the same time

to positions of similar designztion and

classification. Twenty-one officers lodged appeals against

the pxovisional promotion of Mr. Schultz, eleven

of those

appeals being protective appeals lodged

by the officers

who had been provfsionally promoted at the same time as against those eleven officers. Mr. Lincoln, who had not

been provisionally promoted, lodged an

appeal against the.

promotion of Mr. Schultz and	of each of the other eleven
promotees.

At the time of his provisional promotion

and

until he resumed duty in Canberra on

6 June 1983 Mr. Schultz

performed his duties at the Australian High Commission, London.

B;-

l e t t e r d a r e d

June

1983 t h e P r o n o t i o n s

Appeal Coxai t tee

informed

the Secre ta ry

the Depar tnent

o f

F o r e i g n A f f a i r s

t h a t

t h e a p p e a l s a g a i n s t

t h e p r o v i s i o n a l

promotions

had

been

determined.

The

appeals

against

the

provis iona l promot ion of n ine of the ofEicers

were

d isa l lowed.

A n

appea l aga ins t t he p rov i s iona l p romot ion o f each

o f

t h e

o t h e r

t h r e e o f f i c e r s ,

i n c l u d i n g

Mr.

S c h u l t z ,

was

a l lowed.

t h e c a s e o f

M r .

Schu l t z t he appea l o f

>fr. L inco ln

was

al lowed.

The Sec re t a ry was

also

informed

by the

same

l e t t e r

tha t

the pub l i c Se rv ice Board had cance l l ed the p rov i s iona l

p romot ions o f t hose th ree o f f i ce r s

and had proaoted the

successful

appel lants .

According

M r .

Schul tz he

became aware on

June

1983 t h a t Fir.

L i n c o l n ' s a p p e a l a g a i n s t

h is

promotion

had

been

allowed.

t h e same day

became

aware,

says ,

o f

w r i t t e n r e c c r d p r e p a r e d

commit tee tha t

interviewed

, I

him while ,he was!,sverseas

in connect ion w i t h his

a p p l i c a t i o n

f o r p r o m o t i o n

t o

t h e p o s i t i o n .

was

informed

tha t

copy

o f

the

interview

repor t p repa red

i n r e s p e c t o f e a c h o f f i c e r

who

was

a p p l i c a n t w a s

a v a i l a b l e ,

r e q u e s t ,

t o

t h a t

o f f i ce r

i f

were

per forming duty

in Canberra .

w a s

a l s o i n f o r m e d t h a t

t h e i n t e r v i e w r e p o r t s ,

i n c l u d i n g t h a t

r e l a t ing to h imse l f , were fo rwarded to

the

Promotions Appeal

Committee

connect ion with

i t s

cons ide ra t ion

o f

t h e a p p e a l s .

H i s

con ten t ion

i s

t h a t t h e i n t e r v i e w r e p o r t c o n t a i n e d

material

a d v e r s e t o

him

2nd

was

taken in to account

the Promotions

Sppe2 l Coxs l t t ee x i thou t g lv ing h ix

opportunity

t o

d e a l

wcth

i t

r e i u t a t i o n o r o t h e r w i s e . T h a t

will

one of

che n a t t e r s f o r cons ide ra t ion on

the hea r ing

or' t h e

s u b s t a n t i v e a p p l i c a t i o n	If	t h e p r e s e n t a g p l l c a t i o n	is
g ran ted .

On t h e s2me day, 7 June

1953,

P f r .

Schul tz

sough^

advice from

Mr.

J . E .

Srnythe

t he Adn in i s t r a t ive and

Clerical

O f f i c e r s '

A s s o c i a t i o n .

the

fo l lowing

day

M r .

S c h u l t z m o t s t o t h e

Chairman

o f

the Promotions Appealcon-

m i t t e e r 5 q u e s t i n g h i 3

t o

f u r n i s h

s ta tement under sec t ion

t h e B d n i n i s t r a t i v e D e c i s i o n s ( J u d i c i e l

Review)

Act

1977

i n

r e l a t i o n t o t h e d e c i s i o n t o a l l o w

>fr. L inco ln ' s

appea l .

M r .

Schul tz made

an inq-airy by te lephone on S

J u l y 1?83 as t o when 'ne

could expect t o r e c e i v e the

s ta tement

days had elapsed s ince his

request

w a s

made.

A statement under

semction 13 of the Act was

forwarded to

M r .

Schul tz by

t h e Chairman o f

the Promotions

Appeal Committee under cover

l e t t e r

da ted

July 1983.

Mr.

Schultz has

s t a t e d in h is a f f i d a v i t sworn on 6

September

1983 and

f i l e d h e r e i n

t h a t ,

t o

the b e s t

o f

h i s r e c o l l e c t i o n ,

t he s t a t emen t

was

rece ived

him

18 July 1983

Had

t h e a p p l i c a t i o n t o r e v i e w

the

dec i s ion

t h e

P romot ions Appea l Comi t t eebeenf i l ed on o r be fo re

August

1983,

extension

time

would

have

been

necessary.

The

appl icarLon l7z.S

111 f z c t f i l e d

on G

September

1983

s o

t?a:

an e:<ter,s~or. of

days

i s now

requesred .

M r .

S c h u l t z h a s e s p l a k e d t h e d e l a y

i n

f i l i n g

t h e

a p p l i c a t i o n .

F i r s t ,

h e

s a y s

t h a t

h e

was

n o t

aware

u n t i l 25 August

l 9 8 3 t h a t t h e r e

was

time

limit

w i t h i n

which t o aTply to

th i s Cour t unde r

the Admin i s t r a t ive

Dec i s ions

( Jud i , c i a i

Review)

Act

1 9 7 7 .

says

t h a t

w a s informed on

o r .&our

7 June 1983 that t h e Act

imposed

a t i m e l i m i t b f 28 days

the

furn ish ing

s ta tement

I '

under

secEion '13

bu t

tha t

i n none

t he

conve r sa t ions

had with

P l r ,

Srnythe p r i o r t o

25 August

1983

2nd

i n none

the conveksa t ions he had wi th of f icers

i n

t h e S t a f f i n g

sect ion of the Department of Foreign

Affairs

was

he informed

o f

the

t ime

l i m i t

f o r

f i l i n g a n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r

ordsr of

review.	M r .	Schu l t z	appea r s	t o	have	r e l i ed	on	advice	from
I

above sources as

the

procedure

lowed and

d i d n o t c o r s u l t

s o l i c i t o r u n t i l a i i v i s e d o n

August 1983

t h a t t h e t i n e f o r f i l i n g

a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e C o u r t

had

already e-xpired.

Secondly,

?fr . Schul tz

says

that

the delay

f i l i n g ' t h e a p p l i c a t i o n

was

due

t o d e l a y

, t he Admin-

i s t r a t i v e

and

C l e r i c a l O f f i c e r s ' A s s o c i a t i o n

i n

cons ide r ing

a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h a t A s s o c i a t i o n f o r

f inancial

a s s i s t a n c e

t o enable

him to

b r ing

t hese

p roceed ings .

Tha

app l i ca t ion

for

a s s i s t a n c e was

n o t

made

u n t i l

Ju ly 1983 . t he app l i can t

*% ;

having

take-

teps

to ?$?roach tha t Assoc ia t ion or ,

i n d e e d ,

tl;

prepare

s u b n i s s i o n f o r

assistance u n t i l

after

had.

received from the Chairman of the Promotions Appeal

Comnit tee

the

statement unde r sec t ion

13 of t h e Administrative

Decisions

( J u d i c l a l Review)

Act

1977.

On 25 August

1983

Kr.

Schul tz enqui red

of t h e

Assoc ia t ion whether ass i s tance

was

t o b e g r a n t e d t o

L 1n.

H e ' a l so enqu i red whe the r t he re

T J ~ S any

t h e

l i m i t

on making

app l i ca t ion

t o

Cour

and

was

i n f o m e d later o n

t h e

same

d a y t h a t t h e

time

l i m i t e d by

the

s ta tute had expi red and

s h o u l d

s e

, h e

t h a t

lega l aavice .

M r .

Schu l t z a r r anged to

see a

s o l x i t o r and a

conference

took

place

the fol lowing

day, 26 August 1983.

The

s o l i c i t o r , by

le t ters de ted 29 August

1983,

informed

t h e

Chairman

o f

t he P rono t ions

A p p e a l Committee and

Nr.

1 ,

L i n c o l n t h a t h e e x p e c t e d t o r y c e i v e i n s t r u c t i o n s w i t h i n t h e

seven days

t ake p roceed ings

to cha l l enge

the

d e c i s i o n of

the Promorions

ApFeal'

Committee.

,On 2 Sept.ember

1983

t h e a p p l i c a n t

was

informed

by	t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e a n d C l e r i c a l O f f i c e r s ' A s s o c i a t i o n

t h a t

was

p r e p a r e d t o a s s i s t

hirc

i n the p roceed ings .

M r .

Schul tz

has

deposed

t h a t , b e c a u s e o f r e l o c a t i o n e x p e n s e s

incur red by

him on his r e t u r n t o

Canberra in June

1983 from

pos t ing

i n London,

'ne

w a s

n o t

i n a

f i n a n c i a l p o s i t i o n t o

commence

the p roceed ings un le s s he r ece ived tha t a s s i s t ance .

The application vas opposed by the

respondents.

For the first and third respondents

emphasis 1.125 placed

on the public interest in the need for finality in disputes,

particularly disputes concerning promotions, affecting as

they do the orderly administration of the public service.

Comsel did not press this submission so far as to exclude.

m all cases the granting of 2n extension of time but:

submitted that an extension should only be granted in

#special circumstances. Counsel fuether submitted that the determining factor which resulted in the applicetion being filed out of time was the applicant's reluctance to cormnence

;he proceedings until assured that financial assistance

would be available to him through the Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association. This, it was submitted, did not amount to a sufficient reason to allow an extension

and reference was made to the following passage in the

judgment of Fitigerald J. in Lucic v. Nolan and Others	I
I

(1982) 45 A.L.R.

411 at pp. 417-8:

"Although in the event it does not

matter, I am quite unpersuaded that an

absence of legal aid at any time impeded

the relatively forrhal step of the filing

of an application which could later

expanded (s.ll(6)).

Indeed, I doubt

whether the legislative intention that

applications f o r review be

considered

expeditiously should be permitted to be

frustrated by any

delay in obtaining a

grant ,of legal aimd, except in exceptional

circumstances. It seems to me that, in

general at least, it is €or the Legal Aid

Commission to meet times fixed by statute

or by the courts

rather than for an absence

of lesa1 aid to provide an excuse for non-

complxance

Referezlcs was

a l s o made

t o t h e

judgment of EIorling J . in

Becer rs v.

Fowell

and

h o r , ( u n r e p o r t e d

18 February 1983)

where,

i n dea l ing wi th

submiss ion tha t

some p a r t o f

the

de lay

i n

tha t

czse

was

due

t o

u n s u c c e s s f u l a t t e m p t t o

o b t a i n l e g a l a s s i s t a n c e t o b r i n g t h e a p p l i c a t i o n ,

h is

Honour

s a i d :

-"But I can see

no reason why a t l eas t she could

not have

made

h e r a p p l i c a t i o n w l t h i n

time,

l e a v i n g u n t i l

l a t e r date t h e making of

f i n a l d e c i s i o n as

to whe the r

she

would

pursue

i t

t o

i t s

conc lus ion wi thou t l ega l a id . "

I n

a d d i t i o n

t o

t h e m a t t e r s r e l i e d

upon

t h e

f irst

and

t h i r d r e s p o n d e n t s ,

t h e s e c o n d r e s p o n d e n t a s s e r t e d

t h a t h e

would

s u f f e r s u b s t a n t i a l p r e j u d i c e

i f

t h e a p p l i c a t i o n

were

g ran ted . P re jud ice

was

s a i d

t o a r i s e

i n

two

ways.

F i r s t , i t was

sa id

tha t

the

second respondent

ing

-axare

t h a t

t h e a p p l i c a n t i n t e n d e d t o q u e s t i o n t h e c o r r e c t n e s s o f

the

cis ion

the app ly fo r p romot ion to one o f t he pos i t i ons

Promotions

Appeal

Cormit tee ,

d id

not

or	comparable

d e s i , q a t i o n a n d c l a s s i f i c a t i o n

which

had been adver t i sed

July

1983

and

fo r wh ich app l i ca t ions c losed on

2 1 Ju ly

1983-

The

app l i can t had , however ,

app l i ed

one

t hose

p o s i t i o n s

and

had on

13 October

1983 been

p r o v i s i o n a l l y

promoted.

Secondly,

i t was

s a i d that

h i s

p r o f e s s i o n a l

s tanding and oppor tuni t ies €or career deve lopment were

be ing adve r se ly a f f ec t ed	by	the con t inu ing unce r t a in ty
surrounding his promotion.

not propose

t o d i s c u s s

t h e

nrr i ts of

the

app l i caz iox

Eor

an order of review

t h e d r c l s l o n

o f

t h e

Promotions

Appeal

Committee beyond saying

tha t

the appl ica-

t i o n a p p e a r s t o r a i s e

s u b s t a n t i a l , a r g u a b l e q u e s t i o n

concerning

tfie procedures of

Promotions Appeal Committee

where

some

o r

a l l

t h e p a r t i e s t o t h e a p p e a l a r e p e r f o r m i n g

duty overseas .

The

p e r i o d f o r w h i c h t h e e x t e n s i o n

i s

sought

i s

comparat ively shozt per iod and

the

f i r s t

and

t h i r d

respondents would

have

been aware from the comnunicarions

r ega rd ing the fu rn i sh ing o f

s ta tement under sec t ion

t h e Adrninlstrative

D e c i s i o n s ( J u d i c i a l

Review)

Act

1 9 7 7

the

p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t a n a p p l i c a t i o n

would

made

t o

the

Cour t

for

o rder

review.

f a r as

the

second

respon-

dent

i s

conce rned , t he ma t t e r s t o wh ich he r e fe r s

would

h a v e a f f e c t e d h i m - . i f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n h a d b e e n f i l e d w i t h i n

t h e p r e s c r i b e d p e r i o d

he has not

shown

a n y a d d i t i o n a l

p r e j u d i c e a r i s i n g	from	t h e d e l a y o f	22	days	i n	f i l i n g t h e
a p p l i c a t i o n .

While

a g r e e t h a t d e l a y i n o b t a i n i n g l e g a l a i d

w i l l n o t ,

i n gene ra l , p rov ide

excuse

for

non-compliance

w i t h t h e

time

limits

p resc r ibed

t h e s t a t u t e , i n t h e

p a r t i c u l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s

t h i s c a s e

i t was

n o t ,

t h i n k ,

u n r e a s o n a b l e f o r t h e a p p l i c a n t t o d e l a y

the

f i l i n g

o f

t h e

a p p l i c a t i o n f o r

s h o r t p e r i o d u n t i l h e c o u l d

be assured

t h a t l e g a l a s s i s t a n c e

wou ld be ava i l ab le to

him.

I n

t h e r e s u l t

s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h i s

i s

appro? r i a t e c2se

v h i c h t o g r a n t

ex tens ion

o f

t ime.

I , t h e r e f o r e ,

o r d e r

t h a t

t h e

tirne

x i t h i n which

to	l o d g e t h e a p p l i c a t l o n f o r a n o r d e r o f r e v i e w b e

extended up t o and inc luding 6 September 1983.

c e r t i f y t h a t t h i s

and

the p reced ing

n ine

( ? ) pages

are

a t r u e copy o f t h e

Reasons

f o r Judgment o f

the Honourable

Mr.	J u s t i c e Neaves .

Dated:

Assoc ia te

1 0 November

1983

[1983] FCA 328

10 Nov 1983