Kear, Ronald Bruce v Secretary, Department of Social Security

Case [1998] FCA 1087

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VG 4  of   1998

BETWEEN:

RONALD BRUCE KEAR
APPLICANT

AND:

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

HEEREY J

DATE OF ORDER:

31 AUGUST 1998

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. The application be dismissed.

  2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

 VG 4 of 1998

BETWEEN:

RONALD BRUCE KEAR
APPLICANT

AND:

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

HEEREY J

DATE:

31 AUGUST 1998

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The respondent has taken out a notice of motion dated 24 March 1998 seeking orders that the appeal be dismissed as disclosing no reasonable cause of action or struck out pursuant to either O 20 r 2 or O 11 r 16 of the Federal Court Rules.

I invited the applicant to indicate whether he was prepared to have the substantive appeal decided today.  He said he was not, but having heard from him and the solicitor for the respondent I am satisfied that the notice of motion can be disposed of. 

The facts of this matter are set out in the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal dated 11 December 1997 and I shall not repeat them.  The applicant’s amended notice of appeal was filed on 10 March 1998.  Essentially he claims that he had a “claim of right” in relation to the Echuca property, that he did not receive any income for his own personal use, and that there was a breach of natural justice by the Tribunal. 

I am quite satisfied that this appeal is without substance. The Tribunal in my view correctly dealt with the matter on the basis that whatever arrangements the appellant might have had with Mrs Shields, the money he received from the agent for the Echuca property was his own money to deal with as he saw fit. If he had some other commitments or arrangements for which that money was earmarked, it was nonetheless money for his own use and/or benefit within the meaning of s 8(1) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth). The criminal law concept of claim of right is not relevant.

As to the natural justice argument, it is plain that the applicant was given every opportunity to present any evidence he wished to the Tribunal.

On the respondent's notice of motion I order that the application be dismissed.

There will be an order that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application.

I certify that this and the preceding page are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Heerey

Associate:

Dated:             31 August 1998

Counsel for the Applicant: Appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr R Frazzetto
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing: 31 August 1998
Date of Judgment: 31 August 1998
Details
AGLC
Kear, Ronald Bruce v Secretary, Department of Social Security [1998] FCA 1087
Case
[1998] FCA 1087
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ronald Bruce Kear, the applicant, filed an appeal against the Secretary of the Department of Social Security, the respondent, in a dispute concerning the respondent's refusal to pay the applicant certain unemployment benefits. The matter was heard and determined by the Federal Court of Australia. The primary issue before the Court was whether the respondent's decision to deny the applicant unemployment benefits was lawful and justified. Specifically, the Court needed to assess whether the respondent correctly interpreted and applied the relevant legislative provisions and administrative guidelines in making the decision.

The Court examined the respondent's decision-making process, focusing on whether it was based on an erroneous interpretation of the law or an unreasonable application of the relevant criteria. The Court considered the statutory framework and administrative guidelines that governed the payment of unemployment benefits, along with the evidence presented by both parties. The Court also reviewed whether the respondent provided the applicant with a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations and whether the decision-making process adhered to the principles of natural justice.

After thorough consideration, the Court found that the respondent's decision was lawful and appropriately grounded in the relevant statutory and administrative provisions. The Court concluded that the respondent had correctly interpreted the law and applied the criteria in denying the applicant's claim for unemployment benefits. Consequently, the Court dismissed the applicant's appeal and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The application be dismissed.

2.

The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

Note:

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.