Kapeen Gangitano v Centrelink [2003] FCA 1549

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Kapeen‑Gangitano v Centrelink [2003] FCA 1549 RHONDA KAPEEN‑GANGITANO v CENTRELINK N 918 of 2003 BRANSON J 17 DECEMBER 2003 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 918 of 2003

BETWEEN: RHONDA KAPEEN-GANGITANO

APPLICANT

AND: CENTRELINK

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: BRANSON J

DATE OF ORDER: 17 DECEMBER 2003

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application for an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal be refused. 2. There be no order as to costs.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 918 of 2003

BETWEEN: RHONDA KAPEEN-GANGITANO

APPLICANT

AND: CENTRELINK

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: BRANSON J

DATE: 17 DECEMBER 2003

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 I have before me an application for an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ('the Tribunal'). The applicant received a document setting out the terms of the decision of the Tribunal in early June 2003. The present application was made to the Court on 4 August 2003; that is, unless the Court grants further time, approximately a month outside the 28 day period allowed by s 44(2A)(a) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ('the Act') for instituting an appeal from a decision of the Tribunal. 2 In considering whether to grant an extension of time I am required to consider, amongst other things, the reason offered by the applicant for not instituting the appeal within the time provided by the Act and the question of law on which any appeal to the Court would be argued. 3 The applicant today has orally confirmed her affidavit evidence that she is presently under serious stress and under medical supervision in respect of serious problems. However, she has not indicated with any particularity what it was that prevented her from filing an application to the Court during July 2003. She has not explained how it was that she was able to make an application on 4 August 2003 but had been unable to make an application during July 2003. 4 An appeal to the Court from a decision of the Tribunal is an appeal on a question of law (s 44(1) of the Act). The decision of the Tribunal concerned an application made by the applicant under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) ('the Freedom of Information Act'). The applicant has been unable to identify any relevant question of law that she would agitate were she granted the extension of time which she seeks. She has indicated that the Tribunal failed to investigate the history of her matter and she has indicated that she wishes the respondent to be punished and dealt with in a proper manner for behaviour over some time which the applicant categorises as inappropriate. 5 I am unable to identify any basis upon which the above matters could constitute questions of law upon which an appeal could be argued in this Court in respect of an appeal from a decision of the Tribunal considering an application under the Freedom of Information Act. 6 For these reasons, although the respondent quite properly concedes that no prejudice would be experienced by the respondent were an extension of time granted, I am not satisfied that any proper purpose would be served by the granting of an extension of time. The application is refused. 7 Mr G Peek, legal representative for the respondent, asked for an order that the applicant pay the costs of the respondent. Although an order for costs would ordinarily be made where an application of this kind fails, in the particular circumstances of this case I can see no sensible purpose that would be served by making an order for costs. I decline to do so. I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Branson.