Luck v Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink

[2008] FCA 1879

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Luck v Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink [2008] FCA 1879

CORRIGENDUM

GAYE LUCK v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF CENTRELINK and SECRETARY FOR DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

VID 488 of 2008

TRACEY J
10 DECEMBER 2008 (CORRIGENDUM 20 MARCH 2009)
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 488 of 2008

BETWEEN:

GAYE LUCK
Applicant

AND:

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF CENTRELINK
First Respondent

SECRETARY FOR DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	TRACEY J
DATE OF ORDER:	10 DECEMBER 2008 (CORRIGENDUM 20 MARCH 2009)
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

CORRIGENDUM

1.On page 5 in the Appearances the date of judgment is incorrect.  Delete “16 December 2008” and insert “10 December 2008”.

I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice TRACEY.

Associate:

Dated:        20 March 2009

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Luck v Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink [2008] FCA 1879

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review – Application for extension of time to make application for orders of review.

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) s 11(3)

Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen (1984) 3 FCR 344 referred to

GAYE LUCK v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF CENTRELINK and SECRETARY FOR DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

VID 488 OF 2008

TRACEY J
10 DECEMBER 2008
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 488 OF 2008

BETWEEN: GAYE LUCK
Applicant

AND:

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF CENTRELINK
First Respondent

SECRETARY FOR DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	TRACEY J
DATE OF ORDER:	10 DECEMBER 2008
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant’s application for an enlargement of time within which to lodge an application in respect of the decisions referred to in paragraphs 2, 3 and 5 of her application be refused.

2.The applicant’s application for an enlargement of time within which to lodge an application with respect to the conduct in relation to the making of the decisions referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 of her application be refused.

3.The second respondent cease to be a party to the proceeding and all references to her in the application be struck out.

4.Paragraphs 2, 3 and 5 of the application be struck out.

5.Paragraph 4 of the application be struck out insofar as it refers to conduct relating to the making of the decisions referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the application.

6.The applicant’s application for the Commonwealth to be made a respondent to the proceeding be refused.

7.The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to their notice of objection to competency and her application for an enlargement of time including reserved costs.

THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:

1.The respondent file and serve any further affidavits on which he intends to rely at trial on or before 9 February 2009.

2.The applicant file and serve any further affidavits on which she intends to rely at trial on or before 2 March 2009.

3.Any notice…