~ jel eg 5i4 NOT INTENDED FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION No. WA G109 of 1986 wee ww BETWEEN: MAJID FARDSAVAR Applicant and MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS Respondent CORAM: TOOHEY J. 7 November 1986 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT This 18 an application for extension of time in which to file and serve a notice of appeal from a judgment of this Court delivered on 3 October 1986. The application refers to a jiudament qiven by Forster J. on 10 October but his Honour delivered judament on 3 October, handing down reasons on 10 October. The application for extension of time was filed on 6 November 1.e. the day on which it was heard. On 5 November the applicant had filed an application for leave to appeal from the judgment of Forster J. However leave to appeal was not required; there was an appeal as of right but an extension of time was required by reason of 0.52 r.15 of the Federal Court Rules. ba The application for leave to appeal was dismissed and the application for extension of time was pursued. Order 52 r.15 empowers the Court to extend the time for filing and serving a notice of appeal, after the prescribed times have expired, for special reasons. This 1s a more limiting provision than appears 1n some appeal rules. There is no reason to construe "special reasons" narrowly or in some undulv technical Wav. Nevertheless the fact 1s that special reasons must be demonstrated before the Court may qrant an extension of time in the present circumstances. In Wolcott v. Davis (1984) 4 F.C.R. 124 Muirhead J. discussed the operation of 0.52 r.15, stressing that there must be facts or circumstances which are unusual or atypical. Iam not persuaded that the circumstances here are unusual or atypical in the sense contemplated by the rule. It was said on behalf of the applicant that, following the dismissal of his application, his legal representative concentrated his activities on making representations to the respondent to ensure that on his deportation he would be sent somewhere other than to Iran. That may be so but it is not a reason for failing to lodge a notice of appeal within time. It was not suggested that the applicant had been led by assurances on the part of the respondent not to pursue his right of appeal. Ww Indeed 1t 2S siranificant that the first application lodaed after the tudament of Forster J. was a fresh application for an order to review, an application that was lodaed on 3 November. It seems to me that there was a conscious decision not to prosecute an appeal against the deportation order itself but rather to seek a review of the decision of the respondent that the applicant be deported to Iran. That application, which 1s the subject of a motion for a_ stay of proceedings and which motion I deal with in reasons for decision about to be delivered, has undergone some change but essentially it 1s an attack on the respondent's decision that the applicant be deported to Iran. Iam in no way critical of the decision taken by the applicant's advisers to proceed in this way; indeed it may well have been the more fruitful avenue to pursue. All I am saying 1s that, on the material made available to the Court, there was nothing fairly answering the description of special circumstances. The application for an extension of time is dismissed. I certify that this and the preceding two pages are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of his Honour Mr. Justice Toohe , ae Associate Dated: 7 November 1986