Croker v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (No. 2)

[2008] FCA 340

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Croker v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace
Relations (No. 2) [2008] FCA 340

CLAYTON ROBERT CROKER v SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS

NSD2253 OF 2007

EMMETT J

6 MARCH 2008

SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD2253 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	CLAYTON ROBERT CROKER Appellant
AND:	SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS Respondent

JUDGE:	EMMETT J
DATE OF ORDER:	6 MARCH 2008
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs be substituted as the respondent in these proceedings.

2.This appeal be stayed until such time as the appellant provides security for the respondent’s costs in the sum of three-thousand dollars ($3,000).

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD2253 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	CLAYTON ROBERT CROKER Appellant
AND:	SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS Respondent

JUDGE:	EMMETT J
DATE:	6 MARCH 2008
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In this matter, the appellant appeals from orders made by a judge of the Court, by which an appeal under s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) was dismissed. The primary judge dismissed the appeal on the basis that the appeal identified no error of law, which is a pre-requisite under s 44 for an appeal to this Court from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal).

2. By amended notice of appeal filed on 22 February 2008, the appellant stated the following grounds:

   (1)The orders are not in the public interest.

   (2)The orders are not in the interests of the administration of justice.

   (3)Expert medical evidence has not been given full consideration.

   (4)The orders manifest a gross miscarriage of justice.

   (5)Not all medical evidence that was available before the Tribunal was before the single judge of the Federal Court of Australia.

   (6)Only one medical report was independent, and all other medical evidence has been produced by the respondent and its contracting parties.

   (7)No independent specialist medical evidence has been obtained to date.

   (8)Inadequate hearing preparation by mistake in hearing date.

   (9)Alleged bias.

3. None of those matters is particularised in the grounds of appeals.  None of the grounds is directed to the conclusion reached by the primary judge that no error of law was identified by the appellant.  On its face, therefore, the appeal is doomed to failure.

4. The matter is before me now because the respondent, the Secretary of the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, has applied for security for the costs of the appeal.  By notice of motion filed on 6 February 2008, the respondent to the appeal seeks orders that the Secretary of the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs be substituted as respondent, and…