Vranic v Chief Executive Officer Centrelink

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 representation be provided to a party at trial: New South Wales v Canellis (1994) 181 CLR 309 at 330; Stuart v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1996) 96 ATC 4960 (FC) at 4964. 9 In his reasons for judgment Spender J observed that an appeal to this Court from the AAT was limited to questions of law arising in the proceedings before the AAT. His Honour continued: 'The grounds identified in the notice of appeal filed on 17 February 2004, to which reference was made in the course of submissions today, contain no question of law, nor can one be derived from those matters. The grounds do not identify any legal error, nor do they support any of the complaints which Ms Vranic wishes to have resolved. The fact of the matter is that there is no ground of appeal articulated by Ms Vranic and no possibility of the Federal Court being able to exercise the jurisdiction conferred by s 44 of the AAT Act.' 10 There is nothing in the material filed in support of this application which would indicate the possibility of error in the conclusion which his Honour reached for the reason he gave. 11 I am not persuaded that special reasons exist for granting the extension of time sought. Even if such reasons could be made out in the circumstances of this case I would in the exercise of my discretion refuse to grant the extension as I am not persuaded that there exists any issue upon which the applicant has any prospect of success on appeal. 12 The application will be dismissed with costs. I certify that the preceding twelve (12) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Cooper.