Krouskos and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations

[2006] AATA 588

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 588

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No T2005/86

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE  DIVISION		)
Re		JORJIANA KROUSKOS

Applicant

And SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS

Respondent

INTERLOCUTORY DECISION

Tribunal Ms A F Cunningham (Senior Member)

Date7 June 2006

PlaceHobart

Decision The hearing listed for the 8 June 2006 is vacated to a date to be fixed.

[Sgd A F Cunningham]

Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

Disability Support Pension - application for adjournment - hearing

REASONS FOR INTERLOCUTORY DECISION

These are the reasons for the interlocutory decision given orally on 7 June 2006.

3 July 2006       Ms A F Cunningham (Senior Member)   

1. Jorjiana Krouskos is seeking an extension to the portability period for payment of her disability support pension.  Her application was listed for hearing on 8 June 2006 by way of telephone link to Mrs Krouskos in Greece.   She is represented by the Hobart Community Legal Service (HCLS) in Hobart.

2. On 2 June 2006 Ms Munday made an application on behalf of Mrs Krouskos for an adjournment of the hearing.  The application for adjournment was opposed by Mr Brian Sparkes, on behalf of the respondent.

3. The reason for the adjournment was that the medical evidence and papers were not received by Mrs Krouskos’ solicitors until 31 May 2006 and required translation from the Greek language into English.   This further documentation was requested by HCLS after they received earlier documentation in March 2006.  The HCLS had assessed that further medical evidence and in particular evidence of Mrs Krouskos’ mother’s health prior to her hospitalisation which occurred within the portability period, would be advantageous to her appeal. 

4. This further information was received and comprises some 20 pages written in the Greek language. 

5. The application for the adjournment is made to allow sufficient time for the translation of the documents and their consideration.

6. Ms Munday contended that neither Mrs Krouskos nor her representative has been tardy in the preparation of the appeal but that the difficulties arise because of the time involved in obtaining instructions from Mrs Krouskos who resides in Greece.

7. Mr Sparkes opposed the application for an adjournment on several bases:

   1.        That the applicant had failed to comply with the Practice Directions regarding the preparation of documents for the hearing.

   2.        No sufficient cogent reason had been provided to the Tribunal.

   3.        The applicant had failed to disclose particular and compelling reasons       why an adjournment should be given.

   4.        The application for review was lodged some eleven months ago and          relates to a decision made in mid-2004.  The applicant has failed to prosecute   her case in a prompt and efficient manner and a further delay ought not to be     tolerated by the Tribunal.

   5.        The applicant has had the benefit of representation.

   6.        The delay is prejudicial to the Secretary.  It is almost two years after           the original decision and the evidence is now stale. 

   7.        The applicant has had every opportunity to put her case and support it       with evidence as she did in her Statement of Facts and Contentions.

   8. The provisions of s33(1)(b) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act        1975 require that matters be conducted expeditiously.

   9.        The applicant was directed to file and serve her Statement of Facts and            Contentions and proofs of evidence and other documents intended to be    relied on at a conference.  She has therefore had adequate opportunity to put      her case. 

   10.      An adjournment is inconvenient to the Tribunal and the Secretary.

   11.      An adjournment would increase costs.

   12.      The Facts and Contentions submitted by the applicant disclose a case       lacking in merit.

8. Mr Sparkes submitted that if the Tribunal allows the adjournment, the Respondent seeks sufficient time to consider and address any new evidence presented by the applicant.  This may take some months particularly if it is necessary to validate evidence from overseas.

9. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has been tardy in the preparation of her appeal.  The applicant complied with the Tribunal’s direction to prepare a Statement of Facts and Contentions.  The Tribunal file reveals that the first conference was held on 5 October 2005.  A second conference was held on 22 February 2006.  

10. The further information was sought by Mrs Krouskos’ solicitor in the middle of May 2006.  Mrs Krouskos had provided her solicitor with information and medical evidence.  It was Mrs Krouskos’ solicitor’s assessment that further information was required in order to support her appeal.  The Tribunal accepts that the provision of this further information would be occasioned by delays associated with her residing in Greece and difficulties in obtaining further medical evidence.  Such delays may be beyond the control of Mrs Krouskos.  Ms Munday advised that she had attempted to telephone her client on several occasions. The information was received prior to the hearing but being in Greek, requires translation.  There are limited funds available to the HCLS to translate the numerous pages received from Mrs Krouskos.   

11. The Tribunal is satisfied that there has been sufficient explanation for the request for the adjournment and that the reasons are valid.  The Tribunal is not satisfied that an adjournment of several weeks will prejudice the respondent.  Time will be extended to the respondent to consider the translated information and to prepare a response.

12. For the above reasons it is the decision of the Tribunal to vacate the hearing on 8 June 2006 to a date to be fixed.

13. The matter is listed for a directions hearing on 29 June 2006 at 11.00 am.

14. The Tribunal notes Mr Sparkes’ offer on behalf of the respondent to arrange and meet the cost of the translation of the said documents. 

I certify that the 14 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the interlocutory decision herein of Ms A F Cunningham (Senior Member)

Signed:   R Hunt (Administrative Assistant)

Date/s of Directions Hearing     7 June 2006
Date of Decision  3 July 2006

Counsel for the Applicant         Ms G Munday
Solicitor for the Applicant          Hobart Community Legal Service
Counsel for the Respondent     Mr B Sparkes
Solicitor for the Respondent     Centrelink Legal Services Branch