Tran v Singh

Case [2019] FCA 70

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Tran v Singh [2019] FCA 70

Appeal from:

Application for extension of time: Tran v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2016] AATA 550

Application for extension of time and leave to appeal: Tran v Singh [2018] FCA 1512

File numbers: NSD 2060 of 2018
Judge: THAWLEY J
Date of judgment: 4 February 2019
Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – abuse of process – issue estoppel – where applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal under s 44(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (AAT Act) from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – where extension of time application dismissed – where applicant filed a second extension of time application in identical form – whether second application is an abuse of process – whether second application is barred by an issue estoppel

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for extension of time and leave to appeal from decision of this Court dismissing applicant’s earlier application to extend time to appeal under s 44(1) of the AAT Act – whether Court has jurisdiction to hear appeal from decision of a single judge dismissing extension of time application – whether Court has power to grant leave to appeal – application of s 24(1AA)(a) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)

Legislation:

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ss 44(1), 44(2A)(a)

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 20(3), 24(1), 24(1AA), 24(1A), 37M

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 2.25(3), 33.13, 35.13, 35.14, 36.05

Cases cited:

Committee of Direction of Fruit Marketing v Australian Postal Commission (1980) 144 CLR 577

D A Christie Pty Ltd v Baker [1996] 2 VR 582

Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 24 ALR 577

FEZ17 v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1689

Inasmuch Community Inc v Bright [2006] NSWCA 99

National Parks and Wildlife Service v Pierson (2002) 55 NSWLR 315

Nominal Defendant v Manning (2000) 50 NSWLR 139

Rana v Google Inc [2017] FCA 542

Torres Strait Regional Authority v Akiba on Behalf of the Torres Strait Regional Sea Claim [2018] FCA 601

WZAUG v A Judge of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia [2018] FCA 649

Zetta Jet Pte Ltd v The Ship “Dragon Pearl” [2018] FCAFC 99

Date of hearing: 4 February 2019
Registry: New South Wales
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 43
Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the First Respondent: The First Respondent did not appear
Counsel for the Second Respondent: Ms A Wong of Mills Oakley

ORDERS

NSD 2060 of 2018
BETWEEN:

HUU LONG TRAN

Applicant
AND:

PRAVEEN SINGH

First Respondent

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF JOBS AND SMALL BUSINESS

Second Respondent

JUDGE:

THAWLEY J

DATE OF ORDER:

4 FEBRUARY 2019

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The name of the second respondent be changed to Secretary, Department of Jobs and Small Business.

2.The application for extension of time filed by the…

Continue reading Tran v Singh

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Tran v Singh [2019] FCA 70
Case
[2019] FCA 70
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tran v Singh involved the applicant, Tran, appealing against the dismissal of an application for an extension of time to appeal a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The Tribunal had ruled against Tran in an administrative matter, and Tran sought to appeal this decision. However, Tran's initial application for an extension of time to appeal was dismissed by the Federal Court. Undeterred, Tran filed a second application for an extension of time, identical to the first, which the Court was required to address.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the second application for an extension of time constituted an abuse of process and whether it was barred by issue estoppel. Additionally, the Court needed to determine its jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a decision of a single judge dismissing an extension of time application and whether it had the power to grant leave to appeal under section 24(1AA)(a) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).

The Court held that the second application was indeed an abuse of process and was barred by issue estoppel. It found that the second application was identical to the first, which had already been dismissed. The Court considered that allowing the second application would undermine the integrity of the judicial process. Furthermore, the Court concluded that it did have the jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the single judge's decision and the power to grant leave to appeal under the specified section of the Federal Court of Australia Act. Consequently, the Court dismissed the second application for an extension of time and ordered Tran to pay the costs of the second respondent, the Secretary, Department of Jobs and Small Business.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The name of the second respondent be changed to Secretary, Department of Jobs and Small Business.

2. The application for extension of time filed by the applicant on 9 November 2018 be dismissed.

3. The applicant pay the second respondent’s costs as agreed or assessed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.