LXMR and Decision Marker

[2023] AATA 2774

LXMR and Decision Marker [2023] AATA 2774 (11 August 2023)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):2023/3459      2023/3843;

Re:LXMR  

APPLICANT

AndDecision Maker

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Senior Member A Poljak

Date:11 August 2023

Date of written reasons:         5 September 2023

Place:Sydney

The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider the decisions which the applicant seeks to have reviewed. The applications are dismissed. 

.................................[SGD].......................................

Senior Member A Poljak

CATCHWORDS

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – jurisdiction – application for review of a decision by the NSW Department of Education – application for review of the handling of a case by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia – whether Tribunal has jurisdiction to review decision – Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review decision

LEGISLATION

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act1975 (Cth) s 25

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member A Poljak

5 September 2023

1. The applicant lodged two applications for review with the Tribunal. Specifically:

   2023/3459: the applicant seeks review of a decision by the NSW Department of Education (Department) to enrol his daughter in another school without his consent. The applicant contends that this was in breach of orders made by the Federal Circuit Court (FCC). It is also noted that:

   (a)The applicant also complained to the NSW Ombudsman.

   (b)The applicant has sought review of this decision in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which was dismissed.

   2023/3843: the applicant seeks review of the handling of his custody case in relation to his daughter by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA). The applicant also seeks costs against the FCFCOA for the handling of his matter.

2. The applicant claims primarily that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review these matters as they are administrative decisions and because they concern the best interests of a child.

3. The matter was listed for an interlocutory hearing to discuss the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. A decision about the issue was given orally and the matters were dismissed. The applicant now seeks to have reasons in writing. I have attempted to distil the key aspects of the decision in these written reasons.

   Reasons

4. At hearing, the applicant explained that he was not seeking to change any judicial outcome or a decision that was made by the Department. What he appeared to be seeking, with regards to the Department, was an admission of error and an apology that they did the wrong thing. The applicant explained that he was seeking an independent arbitration or mediation to hold the Department accountable. It was a little less clear what the applicant sought regarding issues he raised with the FCC and the FCFCOA, but it appeared that he was seeking to make a complaint against either the Registrar or Judicial Officer and was seeking costs.

5. The applicant has provided to the Tribunal a copy of a letter received from the FCFCOA dated 7 July 2023. The letter thoroughly addresses the applicant’s complaints and provides some guidance as to the applicant’s appeal rights, his options to obtain further legal advice and links to the Family Relationship Advice Line and Community Legal Centres. At hearing, the applicant was advised to re-read this letter in detail and seek independent legal advice as suggested.

6. The applicant was advised that the Tribunal does not have the power to review the processes or procedure of the FCC and the FCFCOA, nor does it have the power to make any findings in response to complaints concerning Judicial Officers or Registrars.

7. As explained to the applicant orally at hearing, the Tribunal does not have a general power to review decisions. It may only review decisions in relation to which jurisdiction has been conferred on it by an enactment: Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act1975 (Cth), s 25.

8. The Tribunal does not have the power to investigate complaints or to undertake investigations. Rather, the Tribunal’s function is to review certain decisions as outlined in s 25 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth).

9. For these reasons, it was found that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider the decisions which the applicant seeks to have reviewed. The applications are dismissed.  

I certify that the preceding 9 (nine) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member A Poljak

..............................[SGD]..........................................

Associate

Dated: 5 September 2023

Date of hearing:	11 August 2023
Applicant:	Self-represented