Dranichnikov v Centrelink

[2002] FCA 1285

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Dranichnikov v Centrelink [2002] FCA 1285

SERGEY DRANICHNIKOV AND OLGA DRANICHNIKOV v CENTRELINK AND BRIAN McKENNA, in his capacity as a Centrelink Recovery Officer

Q 148 OF 2002

DOWSETT J
2 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:

2 OCTOBER 2002

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicants file any material in support of their application on or before 16 October 2002;

2.The respondents file any material in reply on or before 23 October 2002;

3.The matter be listed for final hearing on 25 October 2002; and

4.Costs be costs in the cause. 

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:	2 OCTOBER 2002
PLACE:	BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In this matter, the original application was filed on 11 September 2002.  The two applicants, who are married, seek relief relating to alleged decisions of officers of Centrelink. 

2. The matter was initially listed for directions on 25 October.  That is a rather longer period after the filing of the application than I would normally allow for a directions hearing.  On 26 September, the applicants filed a notice of motion seeking interlocutory relief.  I am not privy to what happened thereafter, but it seems that by yesterday (1 October), the interlocutory matters had been sorted out to the satisfaction of the applicants.  A notice of discontinuance of the notice of motion was filed.  It is sometimes difficult to be confident that litigants in person have necessarily complied with the relevant rules or are acting by agreement with the other side.  I therefore caused my associate to telephone the solicitors acting for the respondents.  He was told that there was no agreement that the matter be put off and that the respondents required that the matter be listed today.  The applicants were advised by telephone that the matter would be listed today.  It seemed to me to be an opportunity to give directions in the matter and so avoid the need for a further directions hearing on 25 October, given that I anticipated that the parties would be here in any event.  Further, as I have listed only one other matter, a directions hearing, for 25 October, it seemed that as this present matter raises relatively narrow issues, I could dispose of it on that day.  I have indicated as much to the second applicant and to the first and second respondents.

3. The first applicant has not appeared today, presumably because he thought that there would be no relief sought.   Nonetheless, he is the second applicant’s husband.  We will, in any event, be able to communicate by letter informing him of any directions made today.  In those circumstances, there seems to me to be no reason why I should not give directions today, notwithstanding the second applicant’s opposition and the first applicant’s absence.  Her opposition appears to be based on a number of things, including the absence of the first respondent.  I have dealt with that matter.  Secondly, she says that I should disqualify myself for bias.  This assertion appears to be based upon the fact that Mrs Dranichnikov has previously litigated in this Court and appeared on some occasions before me.  The history, or Mrs Dranichnokov’s version of the history of events, appears in her submissions.  I do not know whether it is accurate, although it appears to be broadly so.  I have no detailed recollection of the various matters. 

4. It is said that I previously decided a matter against her which was reversed on appeal.  That is true.  It is said that I refused to allow her to assist another litigant in person on a previous occasion.  That is not correct.  I indicated to her that I would not allow her to make submissions through an interpreter, although I also indicated that I would allow her to remain at the bar table to assist the litigant in question.  I gave my reasons for that in the case in question.  I need not say anything more about them now.  It is also complained that I have not yet provided corrected reasons in connection with that matter.  Those reasons are available.  They have been made available today.  Any delay in correcting them is attributable solely to the pressure of other work.  In the circumstances, there can be no basis for my disqualifying myself.  The second applicant has said that she has no time to get ready for a hearing on 25 October.  I do not accept that assertion at face value.  It seems to me that there is more than enough time for her to do so. 

5. A final matter is that she says that she has to undergo some medical procedure between now and then.  I have indicated to her that if there is any medical reason which will prevent her from being able to conduct the matter on 25 October or preparing for it, she should obtain an appropriate medical certificate, identifying her condition, the period during which she will be unable to participate in proceedings and when she will be able to do so.  Similarly, if her husband has any good reason for not being ready for hearing on 25 October, he can make an application to adjourn the matter and, with respect to any directions given today, he can also apply to vary those orders.

6. In those circumstances I propose to make the following orders:

   (1)that the applicants file any material in support of their application on or before 16 October 2002;

   (2)that the respondents file any material in reply on or before 23 October 2002;

   (3)that the matter be listed for final hearing on 25 October 2002; and

   (4)that costs be costs in the cause. 

7. I am now informed that the solicitors for the respondents told Mr and Mrs Dranichnikov by letter dated 1 October that they would be seeking directions today.  In those circumstances, it is difficult to see any reason why directions ought not be made.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett.

Associate:

Dated:            17 October 2002

The Second Applicant appeared In Person.
Solicitor for the Respondents:	Minter Ellison
Date of Hearing:	2 October 2002
Date of Judgment:	2 October 2002