{"issue_text":"Whether the application is incompetent because it seeks to review a decision already accepted by this court in previous proceedings","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Court in HB 79/22 accepted cancellation decision as evidence"}
{"issue_text":"Whether failure to seek extension of time in addition to condonation is fatal","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Applicant only sought condonation, not extension"}
{"issue_text":"Whether failure to attach draft grounds of review renders application fatally defective","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"No draft review application attached"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The applicant and third respondent are engaged in a boundary dispute over mining claims Calcite 23 and Calcite South. The registration of Calcite South was cancelled on 15 October 2013, and the applicant's appeal to the Minister was dismissed on 27 August 2018. The applicant now seeks condonation to file a review application out of time.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases