Wilson, H.R. v The Secretary, Department of Social Security

Case [1985] FCA 428


AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRIT3RY

DISTRICT REZISTRY

JUDGE MAKi!U ORDER

:

Neaves J .

DATE OF ORDER

:

30 August 1985

WHEFE MADE

: Canberra

THE

COURT

ORDERS

THAT:

1.

The time

withln

whlch

to

lnstltute

praceedlngs

in this Court

by way of appeal from the decision

of the Admlnistrative Appeals Tribunal given on 3 December 1934 be extendee up to and including

4 July 1985.

2 .

The applicant not later than

10 September 1985

flle

and serve on the respondent

a

document

settmg aut m t h preclsion the questions of la51

to be raised on tLe appeai.

2 .

3 .

4 .

c

a.

Note:

Set t lement

and

e n t r y of

2 r d e r s

is

~ e a l c w l t h lr!

Order 36 cof the Federa l Co1,rt Ftules.

l

AND :

THE SECRETARY.

DjEPS'nTPEiL'T

OF

SOC1P.L

SECUETT'J

iiespondent

This i's an applicatlon by Hug9 Rupbert Wilson ("the

applicant") for an

extension of tlme wlthln whlch to mstltute

proceedings In thls Court by

wzy of appeal from the declsion

of

the Admmistratlve Appeals Trlbunal given on 3 December 1S84 afflrming a declslon of the Secretary to the Department of Soclal Security ("the respondent") to cancel the payment of invalid pension to the applicant. A notice of appeal was in fact filed m the Court on 4 July 1985 so that %hat is sought

is an extension of tlme up to and includlng

that date.

2 .

G r e a t e r d i f f l c u l t g , h o w e v e r ,

arises

I n

r e l a t l o n t o

t h e

perlo+.

from

10 Aprll

1985 to

4 J u l y l 9 @ 5 .

On

t h e

m a t e r i a l

S s f o r e

me,

I

can

o

conc lude

ly

t ha t

t he

tact

t h a t

the

p r o c e e d m g s

w

e

r

e

n o t

i n R t i t u t e d

e a r l i e r

than 4 J u l y

1985 waz

a t t r i b u t a b l e

s o l e l y t o

delay

on

t h e

p a r t

of

the

a p p l i c a n t ' s

l e g a l

a d v i s e r s

I n

s e t t l i n g

t h e

n o t l c e

of

appes i

and

a r ranqlnq

for

It

t o b e f i l e d .

No

d e t a i l s h a v e b e e n u i v e n

t o

e x p l a l n

t h i s

de l ay

a l though

i t

must

be

said tha t , so

far as

a p p e a r s , no

There are,

however, f m 3 . c t G j r s whlch may

be reqsrded a5

suiflclent to relieve r;he applicant of the con:eqkence: of tilat delay. They lnclde the clrcumnzance that as early as December

1384

the respcndent

G , T ~ S lnformed of

the

possibility gf

an

appeal and the fuctker clrcumstance tha; that notiilcafiun wa5 suppicmenced by a 1er;ter i?ated 22 Q r l l 1985 lnformlng the respondent tha: an 3ppeal was to be l o i q e t . The respondent was

thus always aware that active conslderation was being

#:riven to

t'ne lnstitutlon of an appeal. I have a150 taken into accmnt that on at least two occasions the appllcant's solicitor was

informed that the respondent would not oppose

an appllcatlon

f o r leave to

file a notice of appeal out

of tlme, an attitude

which

the respondent maintained when the present appllcatlon

came on for hearhq.

Another matter to

be taken Into account

is that the present application may properly

be determined upon

consideratlons vhich

affect only the immediate partles: see

Wedesweiller v .

(1983) 47 A.L.R. 528 at p.531.

not accurately

or adequately ldentlfy the question- of law to

be ralsed on the appeal.

idhat appear- to

be necessary 1 s for

the

applicant's

legal

advisers

to

analyse

carefully

the

fmdlngs made by the Trlbunal, to Identify the particular

respects m cdnch the Tribunal is alleged to have erred m law

and then to artlculste clearly and cnnclsely t h e questions of

law that the appllcant intend:

to arque on

Kqe hearing of the

appeal. I, therefore, dlrect that not later than 10 September

1985 the appllcant file and serve on the respondent a document

settmg out with preclsion the

questions of law to be raised on

. .

the

appea l .

That

daczument

should . of ccurse,

be lncludec!

In

t h e appesl p p e r s t o be

pr?pared pursua!?t t o Order 53, i k l e 16

of the Federal Codr t Rules.

I

c e r t l f y

that t h l s

a n d

the preceding 4

pages a re

a

t rue copy

of

the Reasons

f o r Judgment h e r e i n of

the

Honocrable

Mr

J u s t l c e

Assoc ia t e

Dated:

30 August 1985

Details
AGLC
Wilson, H.R. v The Secretary, Department of Social Security [1985] FCA 428
Case
[1985] FCA 428
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves an application by Hugh Rupert Wilson ("the applicant") to extend the time in which to institute proceedings in the court by way of appeal from the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The tribunal had affirmed a decision of the Secretary to the Department of Social Security ("the respondent") to cancel the payment of invalid pension to the applicant. The application was made in the Australian Capital Territory District Registry and presided over by Judge MaKiU ORDER, with the hearing date being 30 August 1985. The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether the applicant's delay in filing the notice of appeal could be justified, thereby warranting an extension of time. The court also needed to determine if the applicant's legal advisers had provided a sufficiently detailed document outlining the questions of law to be raised on appeal.

The court found that the applicant's delay in filing the notice of appeal was primarily due to the actions of the applicant's legal advisers, who had failed to set the notice of appeal and arrange for its filing promptly. However, the court considered several mitigating factors, including that the respondent had been informed of the possibility of an appeal as early as December 1984 and that the respondent had indicated they would not oppose an application for leave to file a notice of appeal out of time. The court also noted that the applicant's solicitor had been informed on at least two occasions that the respondent would not oppose the application. Given these factors, the court was satisfied that the applicant's delay was not entirely unjustified. Consequently, the court granted the applicant an extension of time to file the notice of appeal, up to and including 4 July 1985. The court further directed that the applicant must file and serve on the respondent a document setting out with precision the questions of law to be raised on appeal, not later than 10 September 1985. This document should be included in the appeal papers prepared pursuant to Order 53, Rule 16 of the Federal Court Rules.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.