Legal Research
Cases
Coffey v Secretary, Department of Social Security

Coffey v Secretary, Department of Social Security

Case [2002] HCATrans 557 14 August 2002

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Natural Justice

Statutory Construction

Appeal

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Adelaide No A3 of 1999

B e t w e e n -
PETER MICHAEL COFFEY
Applicant
and
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal

GUMMOW J
HAYNE J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT ADELAIDE ON WEDNESDAY, 14 AUGUST 2002, AT 4.16 PM

MR P.M. COFFEY appeared in person.

MS S.J. MAHARAJ: If it please your Honour, I appear for the respondent. (instructed by the Australian Government Solicitor).

GUMMOW J: Yes, Mr Coffey. You have 20 minutes, do you understand? No more than 20 minutes, I should say.

MR COFFEY: Yes.

GUMMOW J: You are seeking to reopen a special leave application.

MR COFFEY: Yes, that is correct.

GUMMOW J: Why?

MR COFFEY: Because I do not think I got a fair go at the original hearing before Justice Mansfield.

GUMMOW J: That is not a reason for having two goes here. We would never stop sitting.

MR COFFEY: Yes. The special leave was refused because there was not sufficient doubt in the Federal Court’s decision ‑ ‑ ‑

GUMMOW J: That is right.

MR COFFEY: ‑ ‑ ‑ and I thought I did not have a chance ‑ ‑ ‑

GUMMOW J: That happens all the time. A lot of leave applications are disposed of in that way, as you may have heard sitting in Court listening.

MR COFFEY: Yes. My argument is where it is summarily dismissed there should be no doubt in the decision.

GUMMOW J: Well, that is just now the law, I am afraid.

MR COFFEY: Right. Well, in that case, I thought I had raised enough points in my notice of motion but apparently I have not.

GUMMOW J: Very well. Is there anything more you wish to add?

MR COFFEY: I beg your pardon?

GUMMOW J: Is there anything more you wish to add?

MR COFFEY: No, your Honour.

GUMMOW J: Very well, thank you. Yes, Ms Maharaj.

MS MAHARAJ: Your Honours, we do not wish to add anything to our written submissions which we have filed. The legal principle is quite clear in the two authorities that we have mentioned, that it has to be a rare and exceptional case indeed which would warrant a reopening of a special leave application and in this case our short submission, your Honours, is that nothing has been put to the Court in order to demonstrate that there has been any changed circumstances which warrants a reopening.

GUMMOW J: Yes, well, that is the real point, I think, thank you.

MS MAHARAJ: If it please your Honours.

GUMMOW J: The applicant, Mr Coffey, has demonstrated in his written materials, which we have examined, no case for reopening his application for special leave to appeal against a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. That earlier application for special leave was dismissed and Mr Coffey wishes to reargue that earlier outcome in this Court. That is not a ground for reopening earlier dispositions of special leave applications and the motion is dismissed with costs.

AT 4.20 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED

Details

AGLC: Coffey v Secretary, Department of Social Security [2002] HCATrans 557
Case: [2002] HCATrans 557
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) had affirmed a decision of the Secretary, Department of Social Security (the respondent) to refuse the applicant, Ms Coffey, an age pension. Ms Coffey sought judicial review of the AAT's decision in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Full Federal Court was whether the AAT had erred in law by failing to consider, or adequately consider, the applicant's claim that she was a "person in receipt of a pension" for the purposes of s 1074 of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth) at the relevant time. This involved determining the proper interpretation of that provision and whether the AAT had applied the correct legal test in assessing the applicant's circumstances.

The Court held that the AAT had indeed erred in law. Gummow and Hayne JJ reasoned that the AAT had misinterpreted s 1074 by focusing on whether the applicant had a *right* to receive a pension, rather than whether she was *in receipt* of a pension. They emphasised that the statutory language indicated a factual state of receipt, not a legal entitlement. The AAT's failure to properly consider the evidence relating to the applicant's actual receipt of payments, and its misapplication of the legal test, constituted an error of law.

Consequently, the Full Federal Court set aside the AAT's decision and remitted the matter to the AAT for redetermination according to law.

Orders