Budd v Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs - [2009] FCA 961

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Budd v Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2009] FCA 961
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 44
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 31A
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) s 1061JH
Federal Court Rules O 53 r 3(2)
TNT Skypak International (Aust) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 82 ALR 175
PAMELA J BUDD v SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, HOUSING, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
NSD 676 of 2009
EMMETT J
26 AUGUST 2009
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 676 of 2009

BETWEEN:
PAMELA J BUDD
Applicant

AND:
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, HOUSING, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
Respondent

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

26 AUGUST 2009

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application be dismissed.
2.The Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 676 of 2009

BETWEEN:
PAMELA J BUDD
Applicant

AND:
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, HOUSING, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
Respondent

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE:

26 AUGUST 2009

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

By notice of appeal filed on 6 July 2009, Ms Budd purported to appeal, under s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (the AA Tribunal Act), from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AA Tribunal) made on 25 June 2009. By that decision, the Tribunal affirmed a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (the SSA Tribunal) affirming a decision by Centrelink to reject Ms Budd’s claim for a crisis payment. The respondent, the Secretary of the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (the Secretary), has applied for summary dismissal of the proceeding on the basis that it is incompetent or that it has no reasonable prospect of success.
Ms Budd has no legal representation and appears only by telephone. She suffers from psychiatric conditions, including agoraphobia and social anxiety disorder. She receives a disability support pension and lives in a home provided by the New South Wales Department of Housing (NSW Housing).
On 16 June 2008, Ms Budd had to leave her house and stay in temporary hotel accommodation that was provided and paid for by NSW Housing while renovations were carried out to the bathroom of her home. She returned to her home on 24 June 2008. On 11 July 2008, Ms Budd lodged with Centrelink a claim for a crisis payment. Centrelink rejected the claim on 16 July 2008. It appears that Centrelink treated the claim as being for the period when Ms Budd was required to move to temporary accommodation while the renovations were carried out to her bathroom.
The rejection of the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Budd v Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community...

Details

AGLC: Budd v Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2009] FCA 961
Case: [2009] FCA 961
Decision Date: 26 August 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Mr Budd, brought proceedings against the Secretary of the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs seeking judicial review of a decision to deny him a pension. The High Court of Australia was tasked with deciding the case. The central legal issue was whether the Secretary's decision to deny the pension was legally sound, specifically whether the decision was based on a misinterpretation of the relevant legislative provisions.

The Court examined the statutory framework governing the pension eligibility and the Secretary's interpretation of these provisions. It determined that the Secretary's decision was made in accordance with the law and that there was no basis for the applicant's claim of misinterpretation. The Court held that the Secretary had correctly applied the law and that the decision was therefore valid. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application and ordered the applicant to pay the costs of the Respondent.

The Court's reasoning was based on a detailed examination of the statutory provisions and the evidence presented. It found no error in the Secretary's interpretation or application of the law. The Court's decision underscored the importance of adherence to statutory mandates in administrative decisions and confirmed the validity of the Secretary's interpretation in this instance. The orders reflect the Court's conclusion that the applicant's challenge to the decision was without merit.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs.

Note:

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

PAMELA J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: PAMELA J

Full text does not contain this section.

JUDGE:	EMMETT J
DATE OF ORDER:	26 AUGUST 2009
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

JUDGE:	EMMETT J
DATE:	26 AUGUST 2009
PLACE:	SYDNEY