An appeal under s 79(3) of the ACAT Act removed to the Supreme Court under s 83(2) is a limited reconsideration requiring precisely formulated questions of fact or law, not a general merits review. Section 82 of the ACAT Act, which permits an appeal tribunal to deal with an appeal as a new application or review, does not apply to the Supreme Court after removal. The Court departed from the reasoning of Refshauge J in Legal Practitioner v Council of the Law Society of the ACT and Penfold J in O'Donnell v EPA on these points. In extension of time applications under s 103 of the TAA, an approximately six-year delay without acceptable explanation may justify refusal even where the applicant has an arguable case on the merits and the respondent suffers little or no prejudice.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 4 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.