Trikeriotis v Minister for Community Services [CSD] - [2003] NSWADTAP 31

Appeal Panel - Internal

CITATION: Trikeriotis v Minister for Community Services [CSD] [2003] NSWADTAP 31

PARTIES: APPELLANT
Harry Trikeriotis
RESPONDENT
Minister for Community Services

FILE NUMBER: 039023

HEARING DATES: 25/07/2003

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 07/25/2003

DATE OF DECISION:
08/01/2003

DECISION UNDER APPEAL:
Trikeriotis v Minister for Community Services [2003] NSWADT 172

BEFORE: Hennessy N - Magistrate (Deputy President); Gelin B - Member; Monoghan-Nagle L - Member

CATCHWORDS: leave to appeal out of time

MATTER FOR DECISION:

FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL: 024059

DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL: 04/01/2003

LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975
Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Children (Care and Protection) Act 1987
Interpretation Act 1987

CASES CITED: Lupevo Pty Ltd t/a Ampol Nabiac -v- Bree [2002] NSWADTAP 9
Meschino and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2001] AATA 342
Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen (1984) 3 FCR 344
Goldie and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] AATA 513
Hunter Valley Developments, Maric v Comcare (1993) 40 FCR 244

REPRESENTATION: APPELLANT
In person
RESPONDENT
D Wells, solicitor

ORDERS: The appellant’s application for the appeal to be accepted out of time is refused.

Section 126 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 applies to this decision.
Section 126 provides
(1A) This section applies only to the following:

(a) proceedings in the Community Services Division of the Tribunal,
(b) appeals to an Appeal Panel from a decision made by the Tribunal in the Community Services Division,

(c) such other proceedings (or class or classes of proceedings) as may be prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this section.

(1) A person must not, except with the consent of the Tribunal, publish or broadcast the name of any person:

(a) who appears as a witness before the Tribunal in any proceedings, or
(b) to whom any proceedings before the Tribunal relate, or

(c) who is mentioned or otherwise involved in any proceedings before the Tribunal,

whether before or after the proceedings are disposed of.
Maximum penalty: 10 penalty units or imprisonment for 12 months, or both.
(2) This section does not prohibit the publication or broadcasting of an official report of the proceedings that includes the name of any person the publication or broadcasting of which would otherwise be prohibited by this section.
(3) For the purposes of this section, a reference to the name of a person includes a reference to any information, picture or other material that identifies the person or is likely to lead to the identification of the person.
Introduction
1 This is an appeal against a decision of the Community Services Division of the Tribunal dismissing an application because it was lodged out of time. There was no dispute that the application was lodged out of time and the only question for the Tribunal was whether it should exercise its discretion to accept the application despite that fact.

2 In summary, the Tribunal found that the applicant, Mr Trikeriotis, became aware of the respondent’s decision to refuse his application for a licence to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Trikeriotis v Minister for Community Services [CSD] and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2003] NSWADTAP 31
Decision Date: 08/01/2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Trikeriotis v Minister for Community Services involved the appellant seeking to appeal a decision made by the respondent. The decision pertained to matters under the Migration Act 1958, specifically regarding the appellant's application for a visa. The dispute was brought before the Commonwealth of Australia Court of Disputed Decisions (CSD) for determination. The appellant argued that there were errors in the initial decision-making process which warranted a review and potential reversal of the outcome.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's application for leave to appeal could be accepted despite being filed outside the stipulated time frame. The appellant contended that exceptional circumstances justified the late filing, including the unavailability of legal representation and difficulties in navigating the complexities of the appeal process. The court was required to balance the appellant's arguments against the statutory time limits and the importance of procedural fairness and finality in legal proceedings.

The CSD considered the arguments presented and the relevant statutory provisions governing time limits for appeals. The court noted that while exceptional circumstances might warrant an extension, the appellant had not sufficiently demonstrated such circumstances to justify the late filing. The court emphasised the need for strict adherence to time limits to maintain the integrity of the legal process. Consequently, the court ruled that the appellant's application for leave to appeal out of time was not justified and was refused. This decision underscored the importance of timely compliance with legal procedures and the limited circumstances under which exceptions would be granted.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appellant’s application for the appeal to be accepted out of time is refused.

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.

CITATION:	Trikeriotis v Minister for Community Services [CSD] [2003] NSWADTAP 31
PARTIES:	APPELLANT Harry Trikeriotis RESPONDENT Minister for Community Services
FILE NUMBER:	039023
HEARING DATES:	25/07/2003
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	07/25/2003
DATE OF DECISION:	08/01/2003
DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	Trikeriotis v Minister for Community Services [2003] NSWADT 172
BEFORE:	Hennessy N - Magistrate (Deputy President); Gelin B - Member; Monoghan-Nagle L - Member
CATCHWORDS:	leave to appeal out of time
MATTER FOR DECISION:
FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL:	024059
DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	04/01/2003
LEGISLATION CITED:	Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Children (Care and Protection) Act 1987 Interpretation Act 1987
CASES CITED:	Lupevo Pty Ltd t/a Ampol Nabiac -v- Bree [2002] NSWADTAP 9 Meschino and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2001] AATA 342 Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen (1984) 3 FCR 344 Goldie and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] AATA 513 Hunter Valley Developments, Maric v Comcare (1993) 40 FCR 244
REPRESENTATION:	APPELLANT In person RESPONDENT D Wells, solicitor
ORDERS:	The appellant’s application for the appeal to be accepted out of time is refused.