Director-General of Social Services v Rosemary Chaney

[1980] FCA 83

I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA)

)

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY) No. G 4 0 of 1980

)

GENERAL D I V I S I O N )

BETWEEN :

DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF SOCIAL SERVICES

Appel lant

-	AND:
ROSEMARY CHANEY

Respondent

Coram: Bowen C. J.

4 J u n e 1 9 8 0 .

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BOWEN C . J . : Davies J. s i t t i n g as the Adminls t ra t ive Appeals

Tr ibunal he ld tha t h e h a d l u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r t a i n an appeal

from a d e c i s i o n of the Director-General g lven on 14 Apr i l

1 9 8 0 and an appea l aga ins t t he dec i s ion of Danes J. has

been	lodged which	w i l l be heard	by	the Fu l l Cour t	on	1 8 June
next .

To h i s dec i s ion wh ich c o v e r t h e s i t u a t i o n i n t h e meantime Davies J . , i n

was given on 22 May 1 9 8 0 , made an o rde r

pursuant t o sub-s .41(2) tha t he would suspend the o rder o r

d e c i s i o n of 1 4 A p r i l 1980 and added:

. . . / 2

- 2 -

"I th ink I had better say as from the s t a r t

of t h e n e x t p e n s i o n p e r i o d u n t i l t h e h e a r i n g

and de t e rmina t lon o f t h i s renew or o r d e r made

p r i o r t o t h a t d a t e . "

H i s Honour i n d i c a t e d t h a t h e was so dec id lng havlng

mind t o h u r r y i n t o t h e h e a r i n g t ak ing p re s su re o f f t he T r ibuna l and t o avo id hav ing

i n

or d e c l s l o n i n t h e matter, whlch

could be a s i g n i f i c a n t m a t t e r b e c a u s e it was t h e f i r s t

a p p l l c a t i o n u n d e r t h e Social Se rv ices A c t .

I t h i n k it is p l a i n t h a t D a v i e s J. in t ended by h i s

i n t e r i m o r d e r t o suspend t he ope ra t ion o f t he D i rec to r -

Gene ra l ' s dec i s ion o f 1 4 A p r i l 1980 In such a way t h a t t h e

pens ion as from the nex t pens ion pe r iod wou ld be r e ins t a t ed

u n t i l t h e h e a r i n g .

Considerable argument has taken place before me as t o

whether he had power t o d o t h i s h a v i n g r e g a r d t o t h e f a c t

t h a t he i s au tho r i sed by t h e s e c t i o n , t o w h l c h I have

r e f e r r e d , t o make " a n o r d e r s t a y i n g o r o t h e r w i s e a f f e c t i n g

t h e o p e r a t i o n or implementa t ion of the dec is ion" o f the

Director-General. It was a r g u e d t h a t i n t h e case of an

order s imply confirming an earlier o r d e r r e f u s l n g a

pension the power does not extend to maklng an order leading

t o t h e payment of pension.

I t was a l so a rgued be fo re m e t h a t t h e power which I

have under sub-s.44A(2) of the Admlnistrative Appeals Trlbunal

- Act which i s i n similar terms, t o make a n " o r d e r s t a y i n g o r

o t h e r w i s e a f f e c t l n g t h e o p e r a t i o n o r i m p l e m e n t a t l o n o f t h e

d e c i s i o n " , w h i c h r e f e r s t o t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e T r i b u n a l , i s

. . . / 3

- 3 -

no wider. I n o t e t h a t o n e o f t h e g r o u n d s i n t h e n o t l c e o f

appeal to be heard by the Ful l Cour t on 18 June 1980 i s

t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n of Davies J. t o s u s p e n d t h e d e c i s i o n o f

1 4 A p r i l 1 9 8 0 had no effect w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s

e n t i t l e m e n t t o a pension, so t h e power t o make i n t e r i m

o r d e r s w i l l , t h e r e f o r e , be argued before the Ful l Cour t .

In the meant ime, I have t o make a dec is ion whether it

is i n my power t o make an order which w i l l g i v e e f f e c t t o

what was the obv ious i n t en t ion o f Dav ies J. I have found

t h i s a v e r y d i f f i c u l t q u e s t i o n . The o r l g l n a l form of

in te r im order which might be made by the Tr ibunal and by

the Cour t was s imply an o rde r " s t ay ing" dec l s ions . Th i s

having been found inadequate in the case of nega t lve orders

o r dec i s ions , add i t iona l words g iv ing power t o a f f ec t t he

"opera t ion or implementa t ion" o f dec is ions were added by

A c t N o . 143 of 1 9 7 9 .

I t h i n k t h e i n t e n t i o n o f t h e L e g i s l a t u r e c e r t a l n l y

has been t h e C o u r t o r t o p l ace t he T r ibuna l and , i n app ropr i a t e cases,

a Judge i n the p o s i t i o n o f d e a l i n g w i t h t h e

in t e r im s l t ua t ion adequa te ly , even where t he re was a

negat ive dec ls lon under appea l . However, t h e words may

be sald t h i s o b l e c t i v e . to b e o f o n l y d o u b t f u l e f f e c t l v e n e s s t o a c h l e v e

In c o n c l u s i o n t h a t i n t h e i n t e r i m p e r i o d the c i rcumstances, however , I have come t o t h e

I should endeavour

t o g i v e e f f e c t t o the obvlous in ten t ion of Davies J. and

t h a t I r emed la l e f f ec t i n t ended shou ld a l so endeavour t o g ive e f f ec t t o t he obv ious

by t h e amendment brought about by

A c t N o . 143 of 1 9 7 9 .

. . . / 4

- 4 -

.

Thls be ing so, I order in pursuance o f s u b - s . 4 4 A ( 2 )

o f the Adminis t ra t ive Appeals Tr ibunal A c t t h a t t h e o r d e r

of Davies J. be so a f f e c t e d t h a t it o p e r a t e s t o d i rec t t h e

payment o f pens lon f rom today un t l l the da te of t h e h e a r i n g

o f t h e a p p e a l or f u r t h e r o r d e r . I e x p r e s s t h e v i e w t h a t i f

any de l ay t akes p l ace In b r ingmg on t h e a p p e a l , t h i s

p a r t i c u l a r order w i l l be subject to l m e d i a t e revlew on t h e

a p p l l c a t i o n o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o t h i s m o t i o n . I r e s e r v e

l i b e r t y t o any par ty to apply . I w i l l s t a n d t h e q u e s t i o n

of costs over until f u r t h e r o r d e r .

I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA)

)

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY) N o . G 4 0 of 1 9 8 0

)

GENERAL DIVISION 1

BETWEEN :

DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF SOCIAL SERVICES

Appel lant

AND:

-

ROSEAMARY CHANEY

Respondent

Coram: Bowen C . J .

4 June 1 9 8 0 .

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BOWEN C . J . : Davies J. s l t t l n g as t h e Administrative Appeals

T r i b u n a l h e l d t h a t h e h a d j u r i s d i c t l o n t o e n t e r t a i n an appeal

from a d e c i s i o n of t h e Director-General given on 1 4 Apr1.l

1980 and a n a p p e a l a g a i n s t t h e d e c l s i o n of Davies J. has

been lodged which	w i l l be heard	by	t h e F u l l C o u r t	on	18	June
next .

To h i s d e c i s i o n w h i c h cover t h e s i t u a t i o n i n t h e meantime D a n e s J., l n

was glven on 22 May 1 9 8 0 , made an o r d e r

pu r suan t t o sub - s .41 (2 ) t ha t he would suspend the order o r

d e c l s l o n o f 14 A p r i l 1 9 8 0 and added:

. . . / 2

- 2 -

"I t h ink I had better say as from the s t a r t

o f t h e n e x t p e n s i o n p e r i o d u n t i l t h e h e a r i n g

and de t e rmina t ion o f t h i s review or o r d e r made

p r i o r t o t h a t date."

H i s Honour i n d i c a t e d t h a t h e was so dec id ing having

i n mind t a k i n g p r e s s u r e o f f t h e T r i b u n a l a n d t o a v o l d h a v l n g

t o h u r r y I n t o t h e h e a r i n g or d e c l s i o n i n t h e matter, whlch

could be a s i g n i f i c a n t matter because it was t h e f i r s t

a p p l i c a t i o n u n d e r t h e Social Se rv ices A c t .

I t h i n k it is p l a i n t h a t D a v i e s J. in tended by h i s

i n t e r i m o r d e r t o suspend t he ope ra t ion o f t he D i rec to r -

Gene ra l ' s dec i s ion o f 1 4 A p r i l 1980 i n s u c h a way t h a t t h e

pension as f rom the next pens ion per iod would be re ins ta ted

u n t i l	t h e h e a r i n g .
Conslderable argument has taken place be fo re me a s t o

whether he had power t o do t h i s h a v i n g r e g a r d t o t h e f a c t

t h a t he i s au tho r i sed by t h e s e c t i o n , t o whlch I have

r e f e r r e d , to make " a n o r d e r s t a y i n g o r o t h e r w i s e a f f e c t i n g

t h e o p e r a t i o n or Implementa t ion of the dec is ion" o f the

Director-General. I t was a r g u e d t h a t i n t h e case of an

order s imply confirming an ear l ier o r d e r r e f u s i n g a

pens ion the power does not extend to making an order leadlng

t o t h e payment of pension.

I t was a l so a rgued be fo re m e t h a t t h e power whlch I

have under sub-s.44A(2) of the Admlnis t ra t ive Appeals Tr ibunal

A c t whlch	i s i n s l m i l a r	terms,	t o make	an "o rde r s t ay ing	or
-

o the rwise a f f ec t ing t he ope ra t lon o r imp lemen ta t lon o f t he

d e c i s i o n " , w h i c h r e f e r s t o t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e T r l b u n a l , 1 s

. . . / 3

- 3 -

no wider. I n o t e t h a t o n e o f t h e g r o u n d s i n t h e n o t l c e o f

appeal t o be heard by the Full Court on 18 June 1980 is

t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n o f D a v i e s J. t o suspend the dec ls lon of

14 A p r i l 1980 had no e f f e c t w l t h r e g a r d t o the r e sponden t ' s

e n t i t l e m e n t to a pension, so t h e power t o make i n t e r i m

orders w i l l , t h e r e f o r e , be argued before the Ful l Cour t .

In the meant ime, I have t o make a dec is lon whether it

is i n my power t o make an order which w i l l g i v e e f f e c t t o

what was the obv ious i n t en t ion o f Dav ies J. I have found

t h i s a v e r y d i f f i c u l t q u e s t i o n . The o r i g i n a l form o f

in te r im order which might be made by the Trlbunal and by

the Cour t was simply an order " s t ay ing" dec i s ions . Th i s

having been found inadequate In the case of negat ive orders

or decis ions , addi t iona l words g iv ing power t o a f f e c t t h e

"ope ra t ion or implementation" of d e c i s i o n s were added by

A c t No. 143 of 1979.

I t h i n k t h e i n t e n t i o n o f t h e L e g i s l a t u r e c e r t a i n l y

has been the Cour t t o p l ace t he T r ibuna l and , In app ropr i a t e ca ses ,

or a Judge In t he pos i t i on o f dea l ing w i th t he

in t e r lm s i t ua t ion adequa te ly , even where t he re was a

negat ive dec is ion under appea l . However, t h e words may

b e s a i d t o b e o f o n l y d o u b t f u l e f f e c t i v e n e s s t o a c h l e v e

t h l s o b ~ e c t i v e .

I n the circumstances, however, I have come t o t h e

c o n c l u s i o n t h a t i n t h e i n t e r i m p e r l o d I should endeavour

t o g i v e e f f e c t to the obvious in ten t ion of Davies J. and

t h a t I r emed la l e f f ec t i n t ended shou ld a l so endeavour t o g ive e f f ec t t o t he obv ious

by t h e amendment brought about by

A c t No. 143 of 1979.

. . ./4

- 4 -

Thls be ing so, I o rde r i n pu r suance of sub-s.44A(2)

of the Adminis t ra t ive Appeals Tr ibunal A c t t h a t t h e o r d e r

of Davies J. be so a f f e c t e d t h a t it o p e r a t e s t o direct t h e

payment of pension from today until t h e d a t e of t h e h e a r i n g

of t h e a p p e a l o r f u r t h e r o r d e r . I e x p r e s s t h e v i e w t h a t If

any delay takes p l a c e i n b r i n g l n g on t h e a p p e a l , t h i s

p a r t i c u l a r o r d e r w i l l be subject to immediate review on the

a p p l i c a t i o n of the r e sponden t t o t h i s mo t ion . I r e s e r v e

l i b e r t y t o any p a r t y t o apply. I w i l l s t a n d t h e q u e s t i o n

of costs o v e r u n t i l f u r t h e r o r d e r .