Coffey v Centrelink

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Coffey v Centrelink [2004] FCAFC 233

PETER MICHAEL COFFEY v CENTRELINK and THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT SOLICITOR
No S 41 of 2004

RYAN, JACOBSON & LANDER JJ
ADELAIDE

16 AUGUST 2004

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	No S 41 of 2004

On appeal from a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia

BETWEEN:	PETER MICHAEL COFFEY Appellant
AND:	CENTRELINK and THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT SOLICITOR Respondents
JUDGES:	RYAN, JACOBSON & LANDER JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	16 AUGUST 2004
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the respondents’ costs in the proceedings.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	No S 41 of 2004

BETWEEN:	PETER MICHAEL COFFEY Appellant
AND:	CENTRELINK and THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT SOLICITOR Respondents
JUDGES:	RYAN, JACOBSON & LANDER JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	16 AUGUST 2004
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mansfield J summarily dismissing, under order 20 rule 1 of the Federal Court Rules ("the rules"), the substantive application in these proceedings ("the 2003 action").  The 2003 action was an application to reinstate matter number SG6 of 1998 ("the 1998 action"), which was itself dismissed summarily by Mansfield J on 25 September 1998. 

2. An appeal against his Honour's judgment in the 1998 action was dismissed by a Full Court (von Doussa, Branson and Sundberg JJ) on 7 April 1999.  Special leave to appeal was refused by the High Court on 24 March 2000.  Kirby and Callinan JJ were of the opinion that the decision of the Full Court was not attended with sufficient doubt to warrant the grant of special leave. 

3. The respondent in the 1998 action was the Secretary, Department of Social Security (“the Department”), but in the 2003 action the named respondents are Centrelink and the Australian Government Solicitor.  No separate relief was sought against the Australian Government Solicitor and accordingly, his Honour considered that the claim against it should be dismissed.

4. His Honour observed that the proposed change of the respondent from the Department named in the 1998 action was a substantial obstacle to success on the application.  Nevertheless, he considered the 2003 action upon the assumption that the correct respondent was named as a party to those proceedings. 

5. The application in the 2003 action also sought an extension of time to add the Director of Public Prosecutions as a respondent, and an extension of time to add causes of action for defamation, breach of privacy, negligence, conspiracy, abuse of process and restraint of trade.  The application in the 2003 action also sought, by way of interlocutory relief, an order expunging the appellant's police record, which apparently records 32 convictions for fraud against him. 

6. The claim in the 1998 action arose out of the receipt by the appellant of unemployment benefits under the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) (“the…