SZTEN v Refugee Review Tribunal

This matter concerned an application by SZTEN for an extension of time to seek judicial review of a decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal. The applicant sought to quash the Tribunal's decision, which had been made approximately 17 months prior to the filing of the application for relief in the Federal Court.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether an extension of time should be granted to allow the applicant to seek relief against the Tribunal's decision. This required the Court to consider the principles governing the grant of extensions of time for seeking constitutional or prerogative writs, particularly in circumstances where there has been a significant delay in commencing proceedings.

Emmett J, applying the principles articulated by McHugh J in *Re Commonwealth of Australia; Ex Parte Marks*, held that an extension of time can only be granted if it is necessary to do justice between the parties. This involves considering the history of the matter, the conduct of the parties, the nature of the litigation, and the consequences of granting or refusing the extension. Crucially, for applications seeking to quash decisions of public bodies, the public interest in bringing litigation to an end is a significant factor. His Honour noted that a delay of 17 months, without any conduct by the respondent contributing to the delay, made it difficult to see how an extension could be granted, especially given that the applicant had knowledge of the decision. The Court also affirmed that an applicant's inability to obtain favourable legal advice is not a ground for extending time, as it suggests a lack of an arguable case and infringes upon the public interest in the finality of decisions. Consequently, the Court found that the applicant had no arguable case for relief and that the respondent had a vested right to retain the decision.