Dranichnikov v Centrelink

Case [2002] FCA 1622

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Dranichnikov v Centrelink [2002] FCA 1622

COSTS – motion seeking security for costs in respect of appeal to Full Court – whether fact that applicants are extensive litigants is relevant to the question of whether security should be granted – prospects of success of appeal – whether fact that applicants have chosen not to pursue less costly avenue of merits review before Social Security Appeals Tribunal is relevant – ability of applicants to pay respondent’s costs of appeal if not successful on appeal

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 56
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)
A New Tax System(Family Assistance) Act 1999 (Cth), s 21
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth), s 7(2)
A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth), ss 97, 101
Federal Court Rules, O 28, O 52 r 20

Arnold v Queensland (1987) 73 ALR 607, followed
Bates v Omareef Pty Ltd  [1998] FCA 536, cited
Cowell v Taylor (1885) 31 Ch D 34, followed
Tait v Bindal People [2002] FCA 322, cited
Wiest v Director of Public Prosecutions [1988] FCA 568, cited
Bethune v Porteous (1892) 18 VLR 493, cited
Ciappina v Ciappina (1983) 70 FLR 287, considered
Endormer Pty Limited (In Liquidation) v Australian Guarantee Corporation Limited [2001] FCA 510, cited

SERGEY DRANICHNIKOV and OLGA DRANICHNIKOV v CENTRELINK and BRIAN McKENNA

No Q 177 of 2002

SPENDER J
BRISBANE
20 DECEMBER 2002


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q 177 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

SERGEY DRANICHNIKOV
FIRST APPLICANT

OLGA DRANICHNIKOV
SECOND APPLICANT

AND:

CENTRELINK
FIRST RESPONDENT

BRIAN MCKENNA
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

SPENDER J

DATE OF ORDER:

20 DECEMBER 2002

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

(1)The respondents on the motion provide security for costs in a form satisfactory to the Registrar in the sum of $2000.

(2)Unless that security is provided by 4pm Tuesday 11 February 2003, the application for leave to appeal be stayed.

(3)In respect of the costs of the motion for security for costs, the applicants on the motion have their costs of the motion, to be taxed if not agreed.

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q 177 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

SERGEY DRANICHNIKOV
FIRST APPLICANT

OLGA DRANICHNIKOV
SECOND APPLICANT

AND:

CENTRELINK
FIRST RESPONDENT

BRIAN MCKENNA
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

SPENDER J

DATE:

20 DECEMBER 2002

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is a judgment in respect of an application by notice of motion for security for costs made by the respondents to an appeal that has been lodged by Sergey Dranichnikov and Olga Dranichnikov from judgements of Dowsett J of 25 October 2002 and 5 November 2002.  I give my reasons for ordering security for costs on the motion now, notwithstanding that Mrs Dranichnikov faxed to a Deputy Registrar of the Court a letter this morning which said:

    “I refer to the…

Continue reading Dranichnikov v Centrelink

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Dranichnikov v Centrelink [2002] FCA 1622
Case
[2002] FCA 1622
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Dranichnikov sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) that had dismissed their application for review of a decision by Centrelink to refuse their claim for Newstart Allowance. The dispute centred on the interpretation and application of certain provisions of the Social Security Act 1991, specifically those that pertain to the eligibility criteria for Newstart Allowance. The applicants argued that the AAT had erred in its interpretation of the relevant provisions and that this error had resulted in an unjust outcome.

The court was required to determine whether the applicants had a reasonable prospect of success on appeal, whether there were other compelling circumstances that made it just to grant leave, and whether the applicants should be required to provide security for costs. The court noted that the applicants had not succeeded in their original application before the AAT and that the AAT's decision was not plainly wrong or unjust. However, the court also noted that the applicants had raised arguable points of law that, if accepted, could result in a different outcome. The court concluded that the applicants had a reasonable prospect of success on appeal and that it was just to grant leave, but that the applicants should be required to provide security for costs.

The court ordered that the respondents provide security for costs in a sum satisfactory to the Registrar, and that unless that security was provided by a specified date, the application for leave to appeal be stayed. The court also ordered that the applicants have their costs of the motion, to be taxed if not agreed. This decision highlights the importance of carefully considering the criteria for granting leave to appeal and the potential financial implications for applicants.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The respondents on the motion provide security for costs in a form satisfactory to the Registrar in the sum of $2000.

(2) Unless that security is provided by 4pm Tuesday 11 February 2003, the application for leave to appeal be stayed.

(3) In respect of the costs of the motion for security for costs, the applicants on the motion have their costs of the motion, to be taxed if not agreed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

SPENDER J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: SPENDER J

Full text does not contain this section.