An attempt to appeal a refused extension of time, in a dispute running back to a workers compensation claim Comcare denied on 5 September 2014, has been dismissed as incompetent. Justice Hespe upheld Comcare’s objection to competency (a challenge arguing the court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal at all) in Haywood v Comcare [2026] FCA 1483, delivered on 7 October 2026 and determined on the papers.
The underlying claim was made under s 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth). Comcare denied it on 5 September 2014. The then Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed that decision on 31 August 2016. A judge of the Federal Court later dismissed the applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal the Tribunal’s decision.
The applicant filed a notice of appeal from that refusal on 24 July 2026. Comcare responded on 7 August 2026 with a notice of objection to competency, relying on s 24(1AA)(a) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and contending that no appellate jurisdiction existed in respect of a single judge’s decision on a request for an extension of time.
- 5 Sep 2014 Comcare denies the compensation claim.
- 31 Aug 2016 The Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirms the decision.
- 24 Jul 2026 Notice of appeal filed against the refusal of an extension of time.
- 7 Aug 2026 Comcare files a notice of objection to competency.
- 7 Oct 2026 Appeal dismissed with costs.
Justice Hespe found that the primary judge had been acting in the Court’s original jurisdiction under s 20(1) when declining to extend time. The right of appeal from such a judgment is conferred by s 24(1)(a) but is limited by s 24(1AA)(a), and by reason of s 20(3)(b) that limit captures a determination of an application “for an extension of time within which to institute proceedings in the Court”.
An appeal must not be brought from a judgment referred to in paragraph (1)(a), (d) or (e) if the judgment is: (a) a determination of an application of the kind mentioned in subsection 20(3);
The applicant submitted that the Federal Court of Australia Act is qualified by the Magna Carta. Justice Hespe rejected that submission as without merit, holding: “The Magna Carta does not override or qualify an Act of the Commonwealth Parliament”, citing Chia Gee v Martin [1905] HCA 70.
Her Honour described an appeal as a “creature of statute”, citing Dwyer v Calco Timbers Pty Ltd [2008] HCA 13, and concluded that the combined operation of the two provisions left the applicant with “no right of appeal and no right to seek leave to appeal a judgment refusing an extension of time”. The appeal was dismissed as incompetent and the applicant was ordered to pay Comcare’s costs, to be taxed if not agreed (assessed by the Court if the parties cannot settle the amount between them).
At a glance
- Parties: A self-represented applicant and Comcare
- Citation: Haywood v Comcare [2026] FCA 1483 (Hespe J, 7 October 2026)
- Provisions: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 20(1), 20(3)(b), 24(1)(a), 24(1AA)(a); Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) s 14
- Outcome: Objection to competency upheld, appeal dismissed, costs awarded to Comcare
- Who it affects: Parties seeking to challenge a Federal Court judge’s refusal of an extension of time
The judgment applies Praljak v Office of the Australian Information Commissioner [2025] FCAFC 126, in which the Full Court (Mortimer CJ, Colvin and Thawley JJ) confirmed that the bar in s 24(1AA)(a) operates regardless of whether the single judge’s orders were made in a matter in which the Court’s original jurisdiction was to be exercised by a Full Court.
Source: [2026] FCA 1483
General information only. OnNotice reports developments in Australian industrial relations, human resources and workplace law. This article is for education purposes only and is not intended to form professional advice. Always confirm against the primary source and seek specific advice relating to your circumstances.