Federal Court of Australia|1983-07-01

AGministrativs Lay - Cidzoiai srceariey - Aecolica fer extension cf time to ledes application und AGMinistrative Decisions 'Jséic1a_ Favier) Act decisison cto "stand-down" emplevees Follewing

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Peyvievw! Rot Telecommuritsaticons Act 1373, s.433

MP Nm 4 Qo wn is s the mnetbers of ACCA who sad peer steed dnawr a> st fer as xof85

material is @eserised tn afticevits sworn by Vr G.C.T. Eart, the sOliciisr for ACOA, My tunro ané f1iss veipole and needs no

Ih L K it ws (wD K wo relonKn ny d \e Re) i) kd J ®

a wmoanm 8 no notice was given Sy ACCA cr ary cf its ~"evsers i727 the rasecnaent Of the intention cf any "Er tre Wenc|ers tt brivs wertressingss agarnst the respondent an relation it s.-223

The Ceclarations vare nade ir Culy ance August 951. AS early as 16 Maren 1382 cors:ideratictn «&@s given oy ACCA and ts

any proceedings, out 1t was thought that the material and information tnen avallaple was not surtficren

proceegings to be onmences tren and that che tas fF Retaining

of the Personnel aréG Indistrizal Felatirrs Tecearscmert 22 fhe respondent's South A.straliar crerc a in 276 S5.tr iestralian

'i ™ cs i] ao ' nh 10 Sr 4 ty bt te : » ¢ 4 lea 1 nt ma © Id mit tau fy] Wy il il oe fer by po to Oo gate an epee a c 9 wtygke ba cy bd 0 "! ci Go oO He e) [a td Hl oO » U t- ia DD oe £ oO 1 c t~ qt! in no : e ¢ fd i Day fal u On ft } z " : MD Ai Hl » Sa Oltny ct 4 7 : Oo b nog ai "i iS G > ec a r + Ht * ( it : fs - Ma 1h QW) a HI 7 or © 1] 5 1") 1 " 2 " "1 " SI " aly ' o ov - af 1D m { t b i} = 1) Ay '4 -) i) it Fi o = ) . oe of tI Oo a "n ke Q nto lu eahity " ~ bow or ma a tr) a Fas t oF u me 0 v1 oan oO ms » wn ppt icy a ? p HI 1 mes Oo o © ot o Hyde Otis beg Af ns ee Nee FO My a by bs 0 . Oem 4 re fl HES c ot ve re * Diy a ti Si y PR bE ag Ba 8 ane ; aI ne yom + nm ey fad tt G e rf vee) oO mi Om a2 9™MHn a nw 2 MA ° vo i is) Mm .7 OU Y ti vv 2 28 rt 7) 12 ma O ld Oid 20 oO ' : - i) 0 fra Vt Ts bal, anes) 'oon S ~ a is] fio (g) G fo] " Ma oO

The telexes Go no tore, reletentl~ i7 this case, utan estabiisr trét the So.ctr Austrailar oranch OF tne ressocreenn knew un Mey 1982 chat ACOA was tinen investigating at irralla, fourth

m2c-1L321 Thera 18S ne suggestion in tre evidence tnat ihe

Knowledge of the e@cisience or contents Of tre teleaes extenced or

AUsStralzra. The rature OF the services provided and thre widespread deployment 2f staif nave ~ade it necessary for the respondent to

provide in its various regions and orarches a large atTount of

autonomy over cre déy to day runrirg cf 1ts rifices and

I Go now regard the telexes as suttine the respondent on notice, even at 12S South Auwstraliar crarcrh, oF tre literiitn of any of the ten apelicranis cf theirs intentacn i> coring tytceedéings

as 5 ee nes More Chan once Gurirg 2 =n £ - - each 7f the =7

power under particiler where _s a '"'prescrices to trere 13 ag statutory mn on tie ersrcise 22 tne N3garrd &° BUELicatist7 fer

° 7] a3 Sf c 0 8 G

» v Q v wo Ft vy v 4 U oO, x go ¢ is) Fr parry My n ny xuy Cc Wt

oO 7) GS us C 15) my Q 'D a Ue n 4j Q G Lt MY Cc my

GQ wv nwu el £ 'S + n @ 1U

é U Sa sw c1) a dq oO 0 & w a u v Vv v in baad dt Y d Cc G a * ' oy £ coy ~ 2 vu pi 4 o & ami U Py ft oH c cory co oR % Oo QG df U fs) a gC wv v E oo on 1e) 4) U oO

L.A. 223, 2ely deen méGe the prinea facie rii¢ that eroceedings rot ZommMenced in t1me should not be entertained bs © tna CMUET, in exercisi in appropriates ' = 2 ILLoN to tie consecueances iN the applicane 75 2 refusal +o extenc time. Justice, as the ultimate object t% be obtainec oy the exercise of the discrstion, seems to me to require that regard se Nad ie Sraader corsideratiyns tran merely une Lnteresis af tne applican Furtrer, whilst there wlll ce sore matte wich are relavant to the guestion whether should oe extended (in crdinary, lLlitigarcis inter partes) wnicr area 2l1s0 relevant in ins eonteryt, it seems 19 ~eé L1ksly overtias 1s only partlaéi and that difference emrhasis 15 approvcriate tc some of the common factors. rt may be that exceptional circumstances reed not always be srown beinre time can Se extended. Eowever, I consicer that an applicant fcr an extension x a tare the purden how ine circumstance La be granted. of cf certain . an explanation aking application, o the respondent will result 1f tna or, in ty Opinion, if the dels is explained and there will be no personal prejudices i7 the nared responcents, snould an extension alvays oe granted. All else asice, trere will cften ce 19 question ef prejudice +7 a restondent decision

Hi

re) fa ra en fu s2s Qs " C =i oO Ny 1oo HK w un re) th a het re) Ps1m ue) pay Ie fe) vy ct ie re)uw Fh oO nh

(ob pal

w La} w fi3)(7 M ct fe)ct 1° J b ct [e) ie) ty Ie i) Ww w ie} 't i ie is) mn rt Bij 7]a Ms wo ny ul "y v t iv ion 2) yy

Review Act are not merely inter vsartes adversary sorvceedinss. Quest ons of publics interest are involved. Celay by an arplicanc

in cringing his é@cplicaticn is relevent. hak we -gnt tre Court

n o ct fal @ Hy bib re) tai fam Fe) a a re) G K cl ut re) ion no a Co at

Pp ie) tb B ry d ) ih ue) nu ry a Bb 0) aa i- ar tat ia) fe Les wo lon d a

eof the apslicant's case. relay witact.t srejucice 22 the Gelendant in equity, ecrorceedings ay mnt stnst_ laches sufficient to debar the tlainctiil from eoultas_s relisi, cut ine

GuGicial Fevlew Sct 25 soncerneé «witir sup lic rtcs_leretic ts as

Although s.li does anc in tervs place an or.us On an

apolicant seeking an allowance for further time within whicn 79

estaclisn that the applicant dctes not have a case fF£7r aan extension 2f time. Tre apolicant seeks an indulgence. It is for

Wwoetber such direction wlth respect To sork that ure en '1s perfortarg cr is *7 perio boria is mMé@ening 22 secticz 435 = oth A , This init coe

making of findings acount Such an employee, in 4 Tz

wretner anal was sare cetween management enclovees and persons stecnod dewn amounted to & declaraticn woiLch complied «225 section 43A(2} 72 the ACT.

whether havine regarad to what vas sale cetweer the Neanagement entpicyess anid tne cer me notice qn S2A,leo) re amo owritin ac eeen ci

(il) zm relatien to each ci ine croposed aRprLicarts no ew1prenensive .¢rcacit resort 7F tne relet ant cenversatinn "as been tairctaines rn Tansy tases, summaries nave ceen recordes in the records %F ine Fessorcent cv the relevant nénacsment ere lnyees wnich are briat onl,.

é. my anion, the rvreparation ct the case behalf of the Rescondent in reléticn tz

aS & substantive application for an order sf review pSursuant

sub-ss. 11(4) and (5) rather than an application for extension of

cy Go fon p a be ny bh 'y @ a bP o

n io) ct fu(2 ct as o C. oO CG ta (fu fi] ct He) ® yt ob 1h Oo Hy i) y wo 1Q c - n ip ou th oO ty ct i) i)

purpeses of sub-s.'5} to have recarad =o thes matiers me

vitrin a reasonable t1re after tre decisicrs sardar seviaw were mace and voula in all the csirtumstances refuse 12 entertain an

application for an order of review in relatiscr it those

Hickey, Darrell & Ors v Australian Telecommunications Commission [1983] FCA 96

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (46 paragraphs)

Hi

(ob pal

n o ct fal @ Hy bib re) tai fam Fe) a a re) G K cl ut re) ion no a Co at

cy Go fon p a be ny bh 'y @ a bP o

Cited By (1)