Sleep v Repatriation Commission

Case [2009] FCA 1413


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Sleep v Repatriation Commission [2009] FCA 1413

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – applications for extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal from the dismissal of two separate appeals from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – Veterans’ Entitlement Act 1986 (Cth) s 35 service pension is means tested – decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and of the primary judge affirmed – applications for extension of time dismissed.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 44
Veterans’ Entitlement Act 1986 (Cth) ss 5Q, 5QA, 7, 12, 13, 14, 24, 35, 37, 37AA, 37N, 52, Schedule 6 Part 2
Federal Court of Australia Rules O 52 r 15(2)  

Sleep v Repatriation Commission [2008] AATA 1100 affirmed
Sleep v Repatriation Commission [2008] AATA 1101 affirmed
Sleep v Repatriation Commission [2009] FCA 472

KENNETH JOHN SLEEP v REPATRIATION COMMISSION

SAD 131 of 2009

KENNETH JOHN SLEEP v REPATRIATION COMMISSION

SAD 164 of 2009

LANDER J
1 DECEMBER 2009
ADELAIDE


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

SAD 131 OF 2009

BETWEEN:

KENNETH JOHN SLEEP
Applicant

AND:

REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent

JUDGE:

LANDER J

DATE OF ORDER:

1 DECEMBER 2009

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal is dismissed.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court’s website.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

SAD 164 OF 2009

BETWEEN:

KENNETH JOHN SLEEP
Applicant

AND:

REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent

JUDGE:

LANDER J

DATE OF ORDER:

1 DECEMBER 2009

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal is dismissed.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court’s website.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

SAD 131 OF 2009
SAD 164 OF 2009

BETWEEN:

KENNETH JOHN SLEEP
Applicant

AND:

REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent

JUDGE:

LANDER J

DATE:

1 DECEMBER 2009

PLACE:

ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The applicant has brought two separate applications for extensions of time within which to appeal from orders of a judge of this Court dismissing two separate appeals from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) and ordering the applicant to pay the costs of those appeals: Sleep v Repatriation Commission [2009] FCA 472.

  2. The applicant is a veteran who has rendered eligible war service within the meaning of s 7 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) (the Act). As a result of that war service the applicant became incapacitated from a war caused injury or a war caused disease and became eligible for a pension by way of compensation which is to be paid in accordance with the Act: s 13.

  3. Part…

Continue reading Sleep v Repatriation Commission

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Sleep v Repatriation Commission [2009] FCA 1413
Case
[2009] FCA 1413
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sleep brought proceedings against the Repatriation Commission, seeking compensation for injuries sustained during military service. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with resolving an application from Sleep to extend the time to file and serve a notice of appeal against a decision that dismissed his claim for compensation. The primary legal issue the court needed to address was whether the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds for an extension under the applicable rules of court.

The court examined the circumstances surrounding the delay in filing the notice of appeal. Sleep argued that his delay was due to a combination of factors, including health issues, confusion regarding legal procedures, and reliance on advice from a legal representative. The court assessed the applicant's arguments and the evidence provided to determine whether the delay was sufficiently explained and whether it was in the interests of justice to grant the extension. The court concluded that while the applicant had presented some mitigating factors, they were not compelling enough to warrant an extension of time. The court found that Sleep had not demonstrated a satisfactory explanation for the delay, and therefore, the application for an extension was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal is dismissed.

Note:

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

LANDER J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: LANDER J

Full text does not contain this section.