Keller, M. v Australian Postal Corporation

[1994] FCA 1002

l o o 2 99

JUDGMENT No. ........ ....... ,J ,...,

I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) )

VICTORIA	DISTRICT REGISTRY	)	No.VG 394 of 1994
1

GENERAL D I V I S I O N )

B E T W E E N :

MARIA KELLER

Applicant

- and -

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

Respondent

JUDGE :	Heerey J
m:	2 December 1994
PLACE :	Melbourne

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The respondent Australian Postal Corporation applies

order under 0 20 r 2, which enables the Court when it is

satisfied in relation to any claim that there is no reasonable

cause of action disclosed, or that the proceeding is frivolous

or vexatious or an abuse of the process of the Court, to order

that the proceeding be stayed or dismissed generally.

The proceeding was started on 7 November 1994 when the

applicant lodged an application for a review of certain

administrative decisions. Those were - first, a decision made

by Angela Sawyer, clalms manager, Australia Post, on 4 March

1992, relating to compensation for personal injury sustained

on 12 September 1991; secondly a decision made by S. Wallace,

work environment section, retail and delivery business unit

claims manager on 26 February 1993 relating to compensation

for personal injury sustained on or after 17 June 1992; and

thirdly, made by Mrs L. Turner for K.A. -Searson, Commissioner

for Superannuation, Commonwealth Superannuation Administration

on 29 June 1994 relating to an application for payment of the

total and permanent disablement benefits.

It appears the applicant has commenced proceedings in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal seeking to review the second of those decisions. Quite apart from the question that the present application to this Court is out of time under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, it seems much better from everyone's point of view, especially the applicant's, that she have the full right of re-hearing of her claim for compensation that she will get in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This Court can only review questions of law; it cannot re-hear her claim on the merits.

As to the third claim, the respondent, Australian Postal Corporation, is not responsible for superannuation administration and, in any event, that claim is out of time also.

The applicant has filed two affidavits which do not make out any case for extension of time. The affidavits and what the applicant said before me this morning do go into considerable detail in relation to problems she has encountered at her

work. Of course I am not in a position to say anything as to

the correctness or otherwise of her claims. Also, she

complains that she is still treated as an employee of

Australia Post and she says that under the relevant award, after 78 weeks sick leave, her employment is terminated.

I feel sorry for the applicant who, obviously, is in need of some independent advice about her superannuation and employment entitlements, but this Court is not given the responsibility to give advice of that kind; the Industrial Relations Commission may be able to give her some assistance, but I only make that as a suggestion.

I am satisfied the claims made in the applicant's application

under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act,

should not be allowed to proceed further. I grant the orders

sought by the respondent.

I order the applicant pay the respondent's costs, including

reserved costs.

I certify that this and the

preceding 3 (three) pages

are a true copy of the

reasons for judgment of his

Honour M r Justice Heerey.

ADpearances

Counsel for the applicant:	In Person
Solicitor for the applicant:	In Person
Counsel for the respondent:	M McInnis
Solicitor for the respondent:	Wisewoulds
Date of hearing:	2 December 1994