Burgess v Centrelink and Ors

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BURGESS v CENTRELINK & ORS [2006] FMCA 1952

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Appeal from AAT.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, s.44
Federal Court of Australia Act; s.31A
Social Security Act 1991, ss.1061A, 1061EA, 1061ED
Federal Magistrates Court Rules, r.13.10

Boston Commercial Services Proprietary Limited v GE Capital Finance Australasia Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1352
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways New South Wales (1964) 112 CLR 125
Ibarcena v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services (2001) 33 AAR 76
Uka v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2003] FCA 1396

Applicant: DARREN JOHN BURGESS

Respondent: CENTRELINK & ORS

File Number: BRG 805 of 2006

Judgment of: Wilson FM

Hearing date: 18 December 2006

Date of Last Submission: 18 December 2006

Delivered at: Brisbane

Delivered on: 18 December 2006

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: N/A

The Applicant in person: Mr Burgess

Counsel for the Respondent: N/A

Solicitors for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitors

ORDERS

1. That pursuant to Rule 13.10 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules, the application filed 10 November 2006 be dismissed.

2. That the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application generally including the costs of their own application heard by the Court today.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
BRISBANE

BRG 805 of 2006

DARREN JOHN BURGESS

Applicant

And

CENTRELINK & ORS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 20 September 2006, the appellant filed, in the Federal Court at Brisbane, three documents:  a notice of appeal against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal given on 6 September 2006, together with an application for extension of time to file and serve the notice of appeal, and an affidavit by the applicant.  A further affidavit by the applicant was filed on 5 October 2006.  A third affidavit by the applicant was filed on 19 October 2006. 

2. The matter was remitted to this Court by order of Collier J on

   
   

   23 October 2006.  The respondents have appeared and, by application filed 18 December 2006 filed pursuant to directions given by me on

   
   

   3 November 2006, apply to summarily dismiss the notice of appeal and for ancillary relief, if that course is not acceded to.

3. The respondents contend that the appeal has no reasonable prospects of success as the notice of appeal does not disclose an error of law in the Tribunal's decision, as required by section 44 Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.  The applicant is self-represented.  His documents are difficult to follow.  However, it appears from the s.37 documents (the T documents), forming part of the file, that on 26 January 2006, Centrelink decided not to pay a lump sum advance to the applicant amounting to $31,500.  The applicant, as I understand his argument, contends that there is no legislative prohibition in the Commonwealth government commuting periodic payments to a lump sum under the Social Security Act 1991.  He accepts, however, that there is no provision in the legislation which actually permits that course.