Dranichnikov v Centrelink Summary

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Dranichnikov v Centrelink [2002] FCA 1362
SERGEY DRANICHNIKOV AND OLGA DRANICHNIKOV v CENTRELINK AND BRIAN McKENNA in his capacity as a Centrelink Recovery Officer
Q 148 OF 2002
DOWSETT J
25 OCTOBER 2002
BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q 148 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

SERGEY DRANICHNIKOV
FIRST APPLICANT

OLGA DRANICHNIKOV
SECOND APPLICANT

AND:

CENTRELINK
FIRST RESPONDENT

BRIAN McKENNA in his capacity as a Centrelink Recovery Officer
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

DOWSETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

25 OCTOBER 2002

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application for an adjournment is refused.
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 148 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

SERGEY DRANICHNIKOV
FIRST APPLICANT

OLGA DRANICHNIKOV
SECOND APPLICANT

AND:

CENTRELINK
FIRST RESPONDENT

BRIAN McKENNA in his capacity as a Centrelink Recovery Officer
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

DOWSETT J

DATE:

25 OCTOBER 2002

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

I am not going to allow the adjournment. The applicants have known since 2 October that the matter would come on today. They have had discovery. Although there are a number of documents on the list, Mrs Dranichnikov conceded in the course of the argument that most of them were documents already in her possession. Indeed, that is obvious from the affidavit. Her real complaint and that of her husband is of a purely technical kind. They complain that the list was not verified by affidavit and filed within the time set by my directions. The list was verified by affidavit. It was provided to them on 23 October but not filed until a few days later. That may constitute technical non-compliance with my order, but it is of no significance for present purposes.
They also complain that since 2 October, they have been involved in hearings of various notices of motion. That was entirely a matter of their own making. I can see no reason why, having regard to the nature of this matter, it could not have been prepared between 2 October and now, particularly as they must have had some idea about their case prior to commencing the proceedings. The application for an adjournment is refused.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett.

Associate:
Dated: 5 November 2002

The First Applicant appeared in person.

The Second Applicant appeared in person.

Solicitor for the Respondent:

Minter Ellison

Date of Hearing:

25 October 2002

Date of Judgment:

25 October 2002

The Federal Court considered an application for an adjournment by the respondent, Centrelink, in proceedings brought by the appellant, Mr Dranichnikov, for the review of a decision to refuse to pay a Parenting Payment. Mr Dranichnikov sought a review of the decision to refuse to pay the payment on the basis that he had been denied procedural fairness in the decision-making process. The Court was required to determine whether the respondent’s application for an adjournment should be granted.

In determining the application, the Court considered whether the respondent had established that there was good reason for the adjournment. The Court found that the respondent had not satisfied the test for an adjournment, which required the respondent to show that the adjournment was necessary to ensure procedural fairness or to avoid injustice. The Court held that the respondent had not demonstrated that any potential prejudice or injustice could not be remedied by other means, such as by the provision of further information or by a directions hearing.

The Court held that the respondent had not established good reason for an adjournment. The Court found that the respondent had ample opportunity to provide the necessary information and that the application was an attempt to delay the proceedings. The Court noted that the respondent had not provided any evidence to support the claim that the adjournment was necessary to avoid injustice. The Court concluded that the respondent had not satisfied the test for an adjournment and dismissed the application.

The Court made no order for costs. The Court ordered that the application for an adjournment be refused.

Dranichnikov v Centrelink

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q 148 OF 2002

BETWEEN:	SERGEY DRANICHNIKOV FIRST APPLICANT OLGA DRANICHNIKOV SECOND APPLICANT
AND:	CENTRELINK FIRST RESPONDENT BRIAN McKENNA in his capacity as a Centrelink Recovery Officer SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	DOWSETT J
DATE OF ORDER:	25 OCTOBER 2002
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE

JUDGE:	DOWSETT J
DATE:	25 OCTOBER 2002
PLACE:	BRISBANE

The First Applicant appeared in person.
The Second Applicant appeared in person.
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Minter Ellison
Date of Hearing:	25 October 2002
Date of Judgment:	25 October 2002