Vranic v Chief Executive Officer Centrelink

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Vranic v Chief Executive Officer Centrelink [2004] FCA 1511

LJUBICA VRANIC v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CENTRELINK
QUD234 OF 2004

COOPER J
22 NOVEMBER 2004
BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	QUD234 OF 2004

BETWEEN:	LJUBICA VRANIC APPLICANT
AND:	CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CENTRELINK RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	COOPER J
DATE OF ORDER:	22 NOVEMBER 2004
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceeding to be taxed, if not agreed.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	QUD234 OF 2004

BETWEEN:	LJUBICA VRANIC APPLICANT
AND:	CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CENTRELINK RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	COOPER J
DATE:	22 NOVEMBER 2004
PLACE:	BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application pursuant to O 52 r 15(2) of the Federal Court Rules to extend the time within which to file and serve an appeal from the Orders of Spender J made on 30 July 2004.  On that date his Honour ordered that the application by way of an appeal from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘the AAT’) given on 13 February 2004 be dismissed with costs.

2. The power to grant an extension of time under O 52 r 15 arises when an applicant makes out special circumstances.  That is, an applicant must show why the ordinary time limit of 21 days after the pronouncement of the order should not apply; she must demonstrate a ground which justifies departure from the general rule in the particular case:  Jess v Scott (1986) 12 FCR 187 at 195.

3. Even where special reasons can be identified the Court retains a discretion to grant or refuse to grant an extension.  Factors to be taken into account include the importance of the question sought to be raised by the proposed appeal and the prima facie strength of the proposed ground of appeal:  Jess v Scott at 188; Howard v Australian Electoral Commission [2000] FCA 1767 at [7]; Kordatos v Sweeney [2004] FCA 1487 at [17].

4. In the present case the time for filing and serving a notice of appeal expired on 19 August 2004.  The application seeking the extension was filed on 30 September 2004.

5. The applicant is self represented.  She was self represented before Spender J and before the AAT.  She has language problems with English.

6. The material which the applicant filed offers no specific explanation of the delay save that the application states that the extension is sought on the ground that the applicant is self represented.

7. The affidavit filed in support of the application does not disclose with any clarity what questions are sought to be raised nor what relief the applicant would seek on appeal.

8. In her oral submissions the applicant asserted that she had been denied natural justice because she was not legally represented before Spender J.  Procedural fairness in a civil proceedings does not require that legal…