Carson and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Anor

[2008] AATA 747

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2008] AATA 747

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No 2008/2603

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE  DIVISION		)
Re		MARK CARSON

Applicant

And SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, HOUSING, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent 1

KAREN CRAIG

Respondent 2

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member M D Allen

Date17 July 2008

PlaceSydney

Decision For the reasons given orally at the conclusion of the hearing, pursuant to subsection 29(7) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, it is ordered that the application for an extension of time be refused.

...................[Sgd].........................

M D Allen
  Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

Extension of time to review decision – Special circumstances need not be proved – Merits of the application – Little likelihood of success

CASE LAW

Hunter Valley Developments Pty Limited v Cohen (1984) 3 FCR 344  

REASONS FOR DECISION

17 July 2008 Senior Member M D Allen

1. At the conclusion of the hearing of the above matter the terms of the decision intended to be made and the reasons therefor were stated orally. After service upon the Applicant and the Respondent of a copy of the decision that was in fact made, the Applicant, pursuant to subsection 43(2A) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, requested the Tribunal to furnish to them a statement in writing of the reasons of the Tribunal for its decision.

2.      The oral reasons for decision have been transcribed by Auscript, the Commonwealth Reporting Service. Whereas those oral reasons may reflect the inelegance of an extempore decision, they are in fact the reason for the said decision.

3.      The said transcript is annexed hereunto and furnished to the Respondent and to the Applicant as it is the reason for the Tribunal’s decision. 

I certify that this and the preceding page are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member M D Allen

Signed:         .....................[Sgd]..................................
  Ms R Prasad, Associate

Date of Hearing   17 July 2008
Date of Decision   17 July 2008
Appearance for the Applicant          Self-represented
Solicitor for the Respondent 1          Mr M Nicoletti, Centrelink Legal Services
Appearance for the Respondent 2   Self-represented     

EXTRACT OF TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS  [10.22 am]

MR ALLEN: Now, Mr Carson, I am not going to allow the application to extend time. I can indicate to you why that is so now. I am following a previous case, which is Hunter Valley Developments Pty Limited v Cohen (1984) 3 FCR 344 at 348. Now, in that case Wilcox J set out various non-binding considerations which should apply to an application such as this. First of all, he said, in effect:

Although that special circumstances need not be shown, an application will not be granted unless positively satisfied that it is proper to do so. 

There is also a matter in relation to continuing to make a decision-maker aware that the decision is disputed.  I note in this matter that although you received the decision on 12 May of this year and the time should have expired on 9 June, the document application wasn’t received by the tribunal until 13 June.  Normally, such a short period would result in favourable consideration being given.  However, there is the situation that prima facie time limits are to be obeyed and, particularly, one has to regard if one is going to upset the time limits which have been imposed by the legislature, the merits of the substantial application.  Now, I have heard you and what you have said about feeling that you did not, to use the vernacular, get a fair go before the SSAT. 

Now, I have read the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal.  It strikes me that the matters of which you complain were fully canvassed before the Social Security Appeals Tribunal.  There is no material that has been put before me today to show that the decision under review was wrong and that your case was not fully considered by the SSAT.  In particular, there was reference by the applicant to a calendar, and I note that that was before the SSAT, and it is clear from the decision of the SSAT that the credit of the applicant is very much open to question in these proceedings.  I refer particularly to the SSAT reasons for decision, paragraphs 7 to 13 together with their conclusions which start at paragraph 23. 

RECORDED  :  NOT TRANSCRIBED

MR ALLEN:   You may appeal to the Federal Court but I decline to exercise the discretion to extend time on the basis that I consider that there are no real merits in this application. 

END OF EXTRACT  [10.27 am]