Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Bin Tahal v Comcare [1999] FCA 520
HASSAN BIN TAHAL V COMCARE QG 137 OF 1998 SPENDER J 27 APRIL 1999 BRISBANE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY QG 137 OF 1998
On appeal from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal constituted by Senior Member Beddoe
BETWEEN: HASSAN BIN TAHAL
Applicant
AND: COMCARE
Respondent
JUDGE: SPENDER J
DATE OF ORDER: 27 APRIL 1999
WHERE MADE: BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The notice of motion filed 1 February 1999 to extend time in which to file and serve a notice of appeal is allowed.
2. The applicant in the principal proceedings pay the costs of the notice of motion of 1 February 1999, those costs to be taxed if not agreed.
3. The applicant in the principal proceedings pay the costs of the directions hearing of 5 February 1999, 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 QG 137 OF 1998
BETWEEN: HASSAN BIN TAHAL
Applicant
AND: COMCARE
Respondent
On appeal from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal constituted by Senior Member Beddoe
JUDGE: SPENDER J
DATE: 27 APRIL 1999
PLACE: BRISBANE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 By notice of motion filed 1 February 1999, the applicant, Hassan Bin Tahal, "…applies for an extension of time in which to file and serve a Notice of Appeal from the decision or determination of the administrative appeals tribunal…given on 12 June 1998 at Brisbane whereby the tribunal decided or determined to affirm a determination of the Respondent [Comcare] made on 13 February 1996 that the Respondent was not liable to pay compensation to the Applicant pursuant to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988". The notice of motion acknowledges an extension of time is required because a notice of appeal was not filed within the time specified in the Act. 2 It is also sought to rely on a notice of appeal which is headed "AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL" and which is exhibited as WJR1 to the affidavit of Mr William James Royds, the solicitor for Mr Bin Tahal, filed 27 January 1999. 3 In relation to the application for an extension of time within which to appeal, the position was summarised by Wilcox J in Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen (1984) 3 FCR 344 at 348-349. As his Honour noted "Section 11 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) does not set out any criteria by reference to which the court's decision to extend time for an application for review under s 5 is to be exercised". His Honour then set out his well known summary of relevant considerations. 4 In this case, the decision was given in Brisbane on 12 June 1998, and the evidence suggests that copies of the decision were sent on that day to Mr Bin Tahal and to his then solicitors. The former solicitors for the applicant wrote to Comcare on 10 July 1998. The letter said: "We have received instructions from our client to appeal the decision handed down by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in this matter on 12 June 1998.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate