REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT (delivered ex tempore by Burchett J)

The Court has heard argument on the question of whether an appeal as of right purportedly lodged in this matter was competent, the respondents contending that it was not competent because the decision was interlocutory in nature, being a decision on an application for an extension of time to bring proceedings under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977.

The respondents were able to point to Hall v The Nominal Defendant (1966) 117 CLR 423 at pages 440, 444 and 447, and to a decision of a Full Court of this Court in Barrett v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1989) 18 ALD 129 at 130.  The Court is unable to distinguish these decisions and accordingly holds that the appeal is not competent. 

It should be added that, as Mr Fuller pointed out in his argument, there is a degree of artificiality about regarding a decision of this kind as other than final.  But the remedy the law provides for that is that the practical effect of the decision may be taken into account on an application for leave, and is an important factor to be measured on that application.  However, the order of the Court is that the objection to competency be upheld.  The reasons that I have given are the reasons of the Court.

(Later in the day, the Court added to this order a further order that there be no order as to the costs of the motion for dismissal of the appeal as incompetent.)

Associate:

Dated: