Druett v Administrative Appeals Tribunal

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Druett v Administrative Appeals Tribunal [2003] FCAFC 234

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Jurisdiction of Administrative Appeals Tribunal – No reviewable decision identified by appellant.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 25

GARRY DRUETT v ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
N388 of 2003

WILCOX, CONTI and BENNETT JJ
22 OCTOBER 2003
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N388 of 2003

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	GARRY DRUETT APPELLANT
AND:	ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL RESPONDENT
JUDGES:	WILCOX, CONTI AND BENNETT JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	22 OCTOBER 2003
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

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	N388 OF 2003

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	GARRY DRUETT APPELLANT
AND:	ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL RESPONDENT

JUDGES:	WILCOX, CONTI AND BENNETT JJ
DATE:	22 OCTOBER 2003
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

1. This is an appeal, by Garry Keith Druett, against an order of a Judge of the Court (Jacobson J) dismissing his ‘appeal’ against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’).  The notice of appeal names the Tribunal as respondent to the appeal, incorrectly we believe.  The Tribunal has not taken any active part in the hearing of the appeal.  That course was consistent with the observations of the High Court of Australia in The Queen v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; ex parte Hardiman (1980) 144 CLR 13 at 35-36.

2. The notice of appeal in this proceeding does not specify any other respondent, such as a Commonwealth agency whose decision was to be reviewed by the Tribunal.  However, when filed, the notice of appeal that instituted the proceeding heard by Jacobson J specified as respondents ‘the Departments of Health and Family and Community Services’.  This specification was apparently intended to refer to the New South Wales Department of Health and the New South Wales Department of Community Services (‘DOCS’).

3. At the hearing before the Tribunal, the member (Ms N Isenberg) sought to identify the decision in relation to which the appellant sought review.  The appellant conceded he was unable to point to ‘something in writing’ by a Commonwealth agency, but he said that Medicare ought not to have made certain payments.  It seems this was not the main grievance aired by the appellant before the Tribunal.  He was concerned about two much more important matters.  First, the appellant was concerned about the treatment provided by Blacktown Hospital in 1993 to his newborn son, Gregory Druett.  He said this treatment had caused Gregory to become brain-damaged.  The appellant was also concerned about the way in which the Health Commission of New South Wales had responded to his complaints about that treatment.

4. Second, it appears that in 1998 DOCS removed all four of Mr and Mrs Druett’s children from their care.  Mr Druett is…