| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
not exercised |
|
Summary:
Ordinarily, in setting aside the Umpire's decision and referring it back, we might direct that it be referred on to a Board of Referees as the issue was not resolved (error of law). However, the Commission requests that the Umpire make the necessary finding as, under s.81, he may.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Summary:
The matter will be referred back to the Umpire on the basis that the question whether or not the Commission exercised its discretion judicially in refusing the extension must be decided by the Umpire before he decides whether or not to order the appeal to be heard on its merits.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
appealable |
time for appeal to bor |
Summary:
That discretion (special reasons in ss.79(1)) is to be exercised judicially and the refusal of an extension is, by virtue of s.88, subject of an appeal to a Board of Referees.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
discretion of Commission |
time for appeal to bor |
Summary:
The Umpire found that the Board had erred in law by failing to consider whether the Commission had exercised its discretion judicially. He ordered that the Board deal with the merit of the case. By so doing the Umpire effectively granted the extension. That was a clear excess of jurisdiction.
