Case: Pham v Commonwealth of Australia [2002] FCA 669
Outcome: cited
As I have already noted, the applicant did not make his application within 28 days as required by s 46PO(2). Accordingly, as pointed out by Gray J in Pham v Commonwealth of Australia [2002] FCA 669 at par 10, if the application were to proceed, the applicant would have to persuade the Court to exercise the power under s 46PO(2) to allow a further time for the filing of the application. 19 The discretion of the Court conferred by the words 'or within such further time as the court concerned allows' appearing in s 46PO(2) HREOC Act is similar to the discretion given to the Court in s 11(1) Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (' ADJR Act '). Principles applicable to the exercise of the discretion under s 46PO(2) were described by McInnis FM in Phillips v Australian Girls Choir [2001] FMCA 109 , based in turn on principles formulated by Wilcox J in Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen (1984) 3 FCR 344 at 348 in relation to s11 ADJR Act . These considerations articulated in Phillips have been applied in a number of Federal Court decisions including Pham , Ingram-Nader v Brinks Australia Pty Limited [2005] FCA 1541 (Jacobsen J) and Ingram-Nader v Brinks Australia Pty Limited [2006] FCA 624 (Cowdroy J), and are relevant in the case before me. The principles listed by McInnis FM are as follows: 1. There is no onus of proof upon an applicant for extension of time though an application has to be made. Special circumstances need not be shown, but the court will not grant the application unless positively satisfied it is proper to do so. The 'prescribed period' of 28 days is not to be ignored ( Ralkon v Aboriginal Development Commission (1982) 43 ALR 535 at 550). 2. It is a prima facie rule that the proceedings commenced outside the prescribed period will not be entertained ( Lucic v Nolan (1982) 45 ALR 411 at 416). It is not a precondition for success in an application for extension of time that an acceptable explanation for delay must be given. It is to be expected that such an explanation will normally be given as a relevant matter to be considered, even though there is no rule that such an explanation is an essential precondition ( Comcare v A'Hearn (1993) 45 FCR 441 and Dix v Client Compensation Tribunal (1993) 1 VR 297 at 302). 3. Action taken by the applicant other than by making an application to the court is relevant in assessing the adequacy of the explanation for the delay. It is relevant to consider whether the applicant has rested on his rights and whether the respondent was entitled to regard the claim as being finalised (see Doyle v Chief of Staff (1982) 42 ALR 283 at 287). 4. Any prejudice to the respondent, including any prejudice in defending the proceeding occasioned by the delay, is a material factor militating against the grant of an extension (see Doyle at 287). 5. The mere absence of prejudice is not enough to justify the grant of an extension (see Lucic at 416). 6. The merits of the substantial application are properly to be taken into account in considering whether an extension of time should be granted (see Lucic at 417). 7. Considerations of fairness as between the applicant and other persons otherwise in a like position are relevant to the manner of exercise of the court's discretion (see Wedesweiller v Cole (1983) 47 ALR 528).