Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Australian Postal Corporation v Nunez [2014] FCA 1095 Citation: Australian Postal Corporation v Nunez [2014] FCA 1095
Appeal from: Re Edison Nunez and Australian Postal Corporation [2014] AATA 125
Parties: AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION v EDISON NUNEZ
File number: NSD 348 of 2014
Judge: GRIFFITHS J
Date of judgment: 10 October 2014
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – interpretation of s 37(7) of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) – appeal from decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal – whether a question of law arises – Meaning of "reasonable excuse".
Legislation: Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ss 43(2B), 44(1) Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ss 36, 37, 38
Cases cited: Australian Postal Corporation v Forgie (2003) 202 ALR 63 Australian Postal Corporation v Pascoe [2003] FCA 390 Australian Postal Corporation v Pascoe [2005] FCA 289 Australian Postal Corporation v Sinnaiah (2013) 213 FCR 449 Comcare v Singh [2012] FCA 136 Pascoe v Australian Postal Corporation [2004] FCAFC 4 Telstra Corporation v Administrative Appeals Tribunal [2003] FCA 102
Date of hearing: 30 September 2014
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: CATCHWORDS
Number of paragraphs: 68
Counsel for the appellant: M Best
Solicitors for the appellant: Sparke Helmore
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