Kowalski and Repatriation Commission (Compensation)

[2021] AATA 2124

Kowalski and Repatriation Commission (Compensation) [2021] AATA 2124 (26 February 2021)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):      2020/8288

Re:Kazimir Kowalski

APPLICANT

AndRepatriation Commission

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Member A Durkin

Date:26 February 2021

Place:Adelaide

The application for leave to file a further application for review, under section 42B(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), is refused.

.....................[Sgnd]...................................................

Member A Durkin

Catchwords

JURISDICTION - applicant may not make subsequent application for review of a decision without leave of Tribunal under s 42B(2) of the AAT Act - application for review would have no utility – leave to apply refused

Legislation

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (Cth)

Administrative Tribunals Act 1975 (Cth)

Cases

Kowalski and Repatriation Commission [2014] AATA 141

REASONS FOR DECISION

Member A Durkin

1. On 14 March 2014 the Tribunal made a direction (in the matter of Kowalski and Repatriation Commission [2014] AATA 141) that, pursuant to s 42B(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), the applicant may not make a subsequent application for review pursuant to the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (Cth) or the Administrative Tribunals Act 1975 (Cth) without leave of this Tribunal.

2. The applicant sought, on 15 December 2020, to make an application for review of a decision by the respondent to raise a debt for asserted overpayment of disability pension in the amount of $1,824.93.

3. On 15 December 2020, the same date as the present application, the Department of Veterans Affairs had waived any outstanding debt and the applicant was so advised.

4. During a telephone hearing with the applicant on 22 January 2021, in pursuit of the present application, the applicant acknowledged that, in consequence, there was no outstanding debt.

5. Even if the applicant were to be granted leave to file the present application, it would have no utility.

6. Accordingly, the Tribunal declines to grant leave to the applicant to file and pursue the application for review filed on 15 December 2020.

   FORMAL DECISION

7. The Tribunal refuses to grant leave to the applicant to file a further application for review pursuant to s 42B(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth).

I certify that the preceding 7 (seven) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member A Durkin.

…………[Sgnd]………………………

  Administrative Assistant Legal

  Dated: 26 February 2021

Date of hearing: 22 January 2021

Advocate for the Applicant: Mr Kazimir Kowalski

Advocate for the Respondent: Ms Peta Heffernan