Quigg v Australian Postal Corp [1999] FCA 623

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Quigg v Australian Postal Corp [1999] FCA 623 PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – application for an extension of time to appeal a decision of an administrative tribunal.

LUCIA QUIGG V AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

NG 1392 OF 1998 JUDGE: BEAUMONT J. DATE: 28 APRIL 1999 PLACE; SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG 1392 OF 1998

BETWEEN: LUCIA QUIGG

Applicant

AND: AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

Respondent

JUDGE: BEAUMONT J.

DATE OF ORDER: 28 APRIL 1999

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The time for the filing of a notice of appeal be extended up to and including 7 May 1999, but the appeal should be limited to the point described as the "natural justice" ground. 2. The costs of today's proceedings be reserved. 3. The parties be directed to each let the Associate to Justice Beaumont have a written outline of submissions on the day before the hearing 4. The parties approach the Associate to Justice Beaumont to obtain a hearing date. 5. The need for an appeal book be dispense with. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG 1392 OF 1998

BETWEEN: LUCIA QUIGG

Applicant

AND: AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

Respondent

JUDGE: BEAUMONT J.

DATE: 28 APRIL 1999

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BEAUMONT J: 1 Before the Court is an application for an extension of time for the filing of an appeal against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). The decision of the Tribunal was given on 12 November 1998 in Sydney. The solicitors for the applicant, and the applicant herself, were resident in Newcastle. The applicant's solicitors received the reasons for decision on 13 November 1998. The time for filing an appeal to this Court, namely 28 days, expired on 10 December 1998, which was a Thursday. On Monday, 14 December 1998, the solicitors for the applicant attempted to file a notice of appeal but the document was not accepted at the Registry because it appeared to be out of time. 2 In summary, therefore, the applicant's solicitors were two working days out of time, that is to say, Thursday 10 and Friday 11 December. Standing alone, that would not in itself be a reason for refusing the extension. Mr Hart, the solicitor for the applicant, has given an explanation of the course of the history of the matter in the period 13 November 1998 to 14 December 1998 which satisfies me that a reasonable explanation of the failure to meet the timetable has been given. However, the Australian Postal Corporation, in opposing the application for extension of time, further submits that there is no reasonable prospect at all that the appeal will succeed.