Druett v Administrative Appeals Tribunal

[2007] FCA 475

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Druett v Administrative Appeals Tribunal [2007] FCA 475

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Jurisdiction of Administrative Appeals Tribunal – no reviewable decision identified

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 25

GARRY KEITH DRUETT v ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
NSD 7 OF 2007

CONTI J
30 MARCH 2007
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 7 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN:	GARRY KEITH DRUETT Applicant
AND:	ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL Respondent

JUDGE:	CONTI J
DATE OF ORDER:	30 MARCH 2007
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.There be no order as to costs.

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	NSD 7 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN:	GARRY KEITH DRUETT Applicant
AND:	ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL Respondent

JUDGE:	CONTI J
DATE:	30 MARCH 2007
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The present proceedings came before this Court by way of purported appeal from the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) made on 4 December 2006, whereby it was held by Senior Member Isenberg that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction under s 25 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) to hear and address the applicant’s complaints. The applicant was and remains unrepresented.

2. The proceeding before the Federal Court was commenced by way of notice of appeal filed by the applicant on 3 January 2007. Originally the respondents appearing on the notice of appeal were the ‘Department of Family and Community Services’ and the ‘Department of Human Resources and Health’, as well as the Tribunal.  When the proceeding first came before this Court for directions, which was on 6 February 2007, Mr Kunc of counsel appeared for the Department of Family and Community Services and Ms Pownall appeared on behalf of the Department of Human Resources.  Mr Druett appeared in person, and purported to appear on behalf of his four children as well as himself.  He was not accompanied by any of his children on either occasion. 

3. Mr Kunc explained to the Court on that earlier occasion that the applicant held many grievances against public authorities and that the Tribunal had been unable to identify those grievances as having been caused by the conduct of any relevant Commonwealth instrumentality falling within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.  Mr Kunc and Ms Pownall made an application on behalf of their respective clients, then being second and third respondents to the proceeding, that they should cease to be parties to the proceeding, since they were not parties to the original proceeding before the Tribunal.  I granted that application and made orders to that effect pursuant to O 6 r 9 of the Federal Court Rules.  Hence the sole remaining respondent to the proceeding is the Tribunal. 

4. It is readily apparent that what remains of the purported appeal against the Tribunal’s decision of 4 December 2006 must inevitably be dismissed for the reason that no juridical basis for the pursuit thereof is evident or apparent from the content of the notice of appeal or from the submissions, both written and oral, put forward by the applicant to the Court.  Since the Tribunal entered a submitting appearance and there was no appearance made at the hearing of the proceeding by the named respondent to the proceeding, the occasion for any order as to the costs of the appeal does not arise.

5. Nevertheless there are several observations which I think are appropriate to make and which may be of assistance in the context of what appears to have been protracted circumstances which have evidently caused distress to Mr Druett.  In so doing I do not make any criticism, directly or indirectly, of any person or government instrumentality.  Mr Druett spoke of the circumstances to which I have referred in the context of his present purported appeal to this Court.  He appeared to indicate that his purpose in pursuing the present and various prior legal proceedings had been primarily occasioned by his concern to achieve some extent of communication with his four children, whom he has not apparently seen since about 2002.  His three youngest children, aged about 11, 12 and 13 years, were said to be in foster care, whilst his eldest child, aged about 15 years, was said to be in the care of a relative and the Bankstown Catholic Church.  His marriage to the mother of his four children was apparently dissolved some time ago and Mr Druett lives alone.  He is presently employed in casual work, and has been previously employed in warehousing, cleaning and security contexts.

6. I have recorded these matters in case the applicant might be able to obtain some measure of assistance from Government and Church authorities by way of meeting with and participation in some role or activity with his children, however restricted, in what remains of their youthful years.  The extent to which he had pursued different legal remedies, albeit without success, tends to indicate a genuine paternal concern on his part.  I am able to record, in the context of this Court’s relatively brief engagement with the applicant in the course of the present proceeding, that he presented as a polite, subdued and pleasant, albeit distressed, person who earnestly seeks the opportunity of having some encounter or involvement in the lives of at least his three youngest children by way of some measure of access to them.  It may well be of considerable assistance and benefit to this distressed and seemingly sincere person if the relevant State and/or Church authorities, which may be involved already in the welfare of his youngest three children, could enable this person to have access to and dialogue with his children, at least to the limited extent which he appears to earnestly seek.

7. Irrespective of the foregoing observations, this Court has of course no function or role open to be undertaken or performed at the instance of the applicant, no viable cause of action or other process having been conceivably articulated by the applicant.  For that reason I must dismiss the present appeal, the bringing of which is misconceived in any legal sense.  I would not presume to intrude further other than to make the observations which above appear.  

8. No order for the costs of the appeal need be made in the light of what has been already involved. 

I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Conti.

Associate:

Dated: 30 March 2007

The Applicant appeared in person.
The Respondent did not appear.
Date of Hearing:	26 March 2007
Date of Judgment:	30 March 2007