Dudzinski, Waldemar v Secretary, Department of Social Security

[1997] FCA 351

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA  No QG 150 of 1996
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN:WALDEMAR DUDZINSKI

Applicant

AND:SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY

Respondent

MINUTES OF ORDERS

CORAM:  Drummond J
DATE:  23 April 1997
PLACE:  Brisbane

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

NOTE:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA  No QG 150 of 1996
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN:WALDEMAR DUDZINSKI

Applicant

AND:SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY

Respondent

CORAM:Drummond J

DATE:23 April 1997

PLACE:Brisbane

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an application by Mr Dudzinski for leave to appeal an interlocutory judgment given by Spender J on 11 March 1997 refusing an application by Mr Dudzinski for leave to deliver interrogatories to the respondents in these proceedings.   The originating application brought by Mr Dudzinski is for an order to review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth).  It is apparent that Mr Dudzinski is labouring under a serious misconception as to the nature of that limited procedure.  The extent of his misconception is possibly best demonstrated in the quite lengthy application itself by the fact that he makes claims that the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal be set aside and that this Court order the respondents to pay him some $134,000 in damages and by way of compensation under various heads.

The extent of Mr Dudzinski's misconception as to the limited relief that this Court can grant on an ADJR application of the kind he has brought before it is reinforced by the submissions he has made, which seem to me to be directed very much to the merits of the case he says he has against the Department and the wrongs which he says the Department has inflicted on him.  He has quite failed to come to grips with the fact that all that is before the Court for determination today is an application which requires him to demonstrate why Spender J was in error in refusing him leave to deliver interrogatories, which would be an extraordinary step for the Court to permit a litigant to take, where that litigant has brought only ADJR proceedings before the Court.

The rules upon which leave to appeal from interlocutory judgments are well known:  the first question is whether it is shown that the decision is attended with sufficient doubt as to warrant it being reconsidered by the Full Court and the second is whether substantial injustice would result if leave were refused, supposing the decision to be wrong.  It seems to me that Mr Dudzinski cannot make out a case under either of those legs for leave to be given.  I have no doubt that the decision of Spender J in refusing leave to deliver interrogatories was correct for the reasons that his Honour gave, and because of the limited nature of the proceeding before this Court for review of the decision of the AAT, I cannot see that there is any injustice at all of a kind which it would be relevant to take into account in applying the second leg of the test which Mr Dudzinski can possibly suffer if the decision of Spender J stands.

I should also say that Spender J’s decision, in any event, was very plainly an interlocutory decision of the kind that this Court is very reluctant indeed to allow to be appealed, having regard to well established principles.

The application for leave to appeal is therefore dismissed.

I certify that this and the preceding two
pages are a true copy of the reasons
for judgment herein of the Honourable
Justice Drummond.

Associate:

Date:23 April 1997