Dudzinski v Centrelink

[2003] FCA 1500

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Dudzinski v Centrelink [2003] FCA 1500

INJUNCTION – prerogative relief - where application for writ of mandamus, prohibition and injunction against Centrelink for refusal to pay Newstart Allowance – whether such remedies are available – whether signing a Preparing for Work Agreement a condition of payment of Newstart Allowance - whether the requirement to join Job Seeker Network is ultra vires the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) – whether notice required under s 605(1B) and s 605(3) of that Act is satisfied by letters posted or hand delivered, or by oral notice

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) s 593, s 604, s 605, s 606
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) s 11, s 13(1), s 16, s 41, s 42,
Schedule 2 Part 2

R v Spicer; Ex parte Waterside Workers Federation of Australia No. 2 (1958) 100 CLR 324 followed

WALDEMAR DUDZINSKI and ANNA DUDZINSKI v CENTRELINK and JUDY O’SHEA and JOHN CURCURRUTO

Q 15 of 2003

SPENDER J
BRISBANE
16 DECEMBER 2003

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q 15 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

WALDEMAR DUDZINSKI
FIRST APPLICANT

ANNA DUDZINSKI
SECOND APPLICANT

AND:

CENTRELINK
FIRST RESPONDENT

JUDY O'SHEA
SECOND RESPONDENT

JOHN CURCURRUTO
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

SPENDER J

DATE OF ORDER:

16 DECEMBER 2003

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The second applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the application, including reserved costs, 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 15 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

WALDEMAR DUDZINSKI
FIRST APPLICANT

ANNA DUDZINSKI
SECOND APPLICANT

AND:

CENTRELINK
FIRST RESPONDENT

JUDY O'SHEA
SECOND RESPONDENT

JOHN CURCURRUTO
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	SPENDER J
DATE:	16 DECEMBER 2003
PLACE:	BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) for orders of mandamus, prohibition and injunction. The applicants make this claim in respect of a refusal by the first respondent, Centrelink, to pay them various social security payments.

2. The first applicant has been dismissed from this proceedings, so it is not necessary to make further reference to his claim. The second and third respondents are employees of the first respondent.

3. In the application filed 13 February 2003 , the second applicant (Mrs Dudzinski) seeks:

   ‘1.Order of prohibition under the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), section 39B against the first, the second and the third respondents prohibiting:

   1.1The first and second respondents to refuse a payment of the second applicant’s entitlement called newstart allowance since or about 10/9/2002 and totalling as at present ca $4,300.00;

   1.2The third respondent to make the decision he made on or about 24/12/2002 aiding and abating (sic) the first and the second respondents refusing to pay the second applicant her entitlement called newstart allowance since or about 10/9/2002 totalling as at present ca $4,300.00;

   1.3The first and…