FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Manchester v MacDonnell [2012] FCA 841
Citation: Manchester v MacDonnell [2012] FCA 841 Appeal from: Federal Magistrates Court of Australia Parties: MR MANCHESTER v JANE MACDONNELL, SUE ELLEN BULLOCK, SOCIAL SECURITY APPEALS TRIBUNAL, MS MANCHESTER and COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA File number: NSD 160 of 2012 Judge: GRIFFITHS J Date of judgment: 10 August 2012 Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – decision by SSAT Principal Member to remove appellant as a party to SSAT proceedings – decision by SSAT Senior Member to consequently dismiss appellant’s application to SSAT – whether Senior Member failed to take into account prejudice to the appellant – whether Federal Magistrate failed to consider the effect of the removal decision on the appellant’s substantive rights – whether the Federal Magistrate erred in not finding that the Principal Member improperly exercised discretion under s 101(5)(c) of the Child Support (Registration & Collection) Act 1988 (Cth) Legislation: Child Support (Registration & Collection) Act 1988 (Cth) ss 88, 100, 101, 103K, 103N, 103ZA
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) s 5Cases cited: Lenijamar Pty Ltd v AGC (Advances) Limited (1990) 27 FCR 388 Date of hearing: 6 August 2012 Place: Sydney Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 58 Counsel for the Appellant: Mr G A Laughton SC Solicitor for the Appellant: Maclarens Lawyers Counsel for the First Respondent: The First Respondent submitted save as to costs Counsel for the Second Respondent: The Second Respondent submitted save as to costs Counsel for the Third Respondent: The Third Respondent submitted save as to costs Counsel for the Fourth Respondent: The Fourth Respondent submitted save as to costs Solicitor for the Fifth Respondent: Mr A Markus of Australian Government Solicitor
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 160 of 2012
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: MR MANCHESTER
AppellantAND: JANE MACDONNELL
First RespondentSUE ELLEN BULLOCK
Second RespondentSOCIAL SECURITY APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Third RespondentMS MANCHESTER
Fourth RespondentCOMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Fifth Respondent
JUDGE:
GRIFFITHS J
DATE OF ORDER:
10 AUGUST 2012
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal is dismissed.
Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 160 of 2012
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: MR MANCHESTER
AppellantAND: JANE MACDONNELL
First RespondentSUE ELLEN BULLOCK
Second RespondentSOCIAL SECURITY APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Third RespondentMS MANCHESTER
Fourth RespondentCOMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Fifth Respondent
JUDGE:
GRIFFITHS J
DATE:
10 AUGUST 2012
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The appellant appeals against orders made by Halligan FM in proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court involving a judicial review of two decisions made by members of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT). Those decisions are, first, a decision by the Principal Member of the SSAT (the first respondent in the appeal) to remove the appellant as a party to…
Continue reading Manchester v MacDonnell
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Manchester v MacDonnell [2012] FCA 841
- Case
- [2012] FCA 841
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Manchester v MacDonnell, the appellant challenged the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) to remove him as a party to proceedings, as well as the subsequent dismissal of his application for review. The Federal Magistrates Court dismissed his judicial review challenge, and the appellant now appeals to the Federal Court. The central issue before the court was whether the Senior Member of the SSAT failed to consider the prejudice to the appellant when removing him as a party, and whether the Federal Magistrate erred in not finding that the Principal Member improperly exercised her discretion under the relevant statute. The court examined the SSAT’s procedures and the relevant legislative provisions, including the objective of providing a fair, just, economical, informal, and quick review mechanism, as well as the powers of the SSAT Principal Member to direct the removal of a party for failure to comply with directions or orders.
The court found that the Senior Member’s decision to dismiss the appellant’s application for review was not unreasonable, as the appellant had failed to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the removal decision. Additionally, the court held that the Federal Magistrate did not err in his assessment of the Principal Member’s exercise of discretion. The court also noted that the appellant could still re-apply to the SSAT for a review of the original decision regarding his child support assessments and seek an extension of time under the relevant statute. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal and made no order for costs.
1. The appeal is dismissed.
The court found that the Senior Member’s decision to dismiss the appellant’s application for review was not unreasonable, as the appellant had failed to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the removal decision. Additionally, the court held that the Federal Magistrate did not err in his assessment of the Principal Member’s exercise of discretion. The court also noted that the appellant could still re-apply to the SSAT for a review of the original decision regarding his child support assessments and seek an extension of time under the relevant statute. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal and made no order for costs.
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
I propose to structure these reasons as follows:·summarise the relevant legislative background;·summarise the relevant factual background;·outline the Principal Member’s reasons for her decision to remove the appellant as a party to the SSAT review;·outline Halligan FM’s reasons for dismissing the judicial review challenge; and·provide reasons for my decision to dismiss the appeal. Summary of legislative background Part VIIA of the Act provides a right of review by the SSAT of certain decisions of the Registrar. Section 88 of the Act identifies the following objective for the SSAT:In carrying out its functions under this Act, the SSAT must pursue the objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical, informal and quick. The SSAT hearing procedure is affected by s 103N of the Act, which provides:(1) The SSAT, in reviewing a decision under this Part:(a)is not bound by legal technicalities, legal forms or rules of evidence; and(b)is to act as speedily as a proper consideration of the review allows; and(c)in determining what a proper consideration of the review requires, must have regard to the objective laid down by section 88.(2)The SSAT may inform itself on any matter relevant to a review of a decision in any manner it considers appropriate.Note:The SSAT Principal Member may give directions as to the procedure to be followed in connection with reviews (see section 103ZA) Various administrative functions and powers are conferred on the Principal Member, including the power to:(a)convene a pre-hearing conference at which directions may be given inter alia the time within which evidence is to be brought before the SSAT (s 103);(b)give “general directions” as to procedures to be followed in connection with the review of decisions generally or give procedural directions for a particular review (s 103ZA(1)); and(c)require a person to give to the SSAT such information as the Principal Member requires, or produce to the SSAT, any documents in the custody or under the control of the person where “it is reasonably necessary for the purposes of a review” to do so (s 103K(1)). In addition, a presiding member of the SSAT as constituted for the purposes of a particular review is also empowered to give directions as to the procedure to be followed for the hearing of that review (s 103ZA(4)). As noted above, the two decisions which were the subject of the judicial review application in the Federal Magistrates Court (i.e. the second set of proceedings brought by the appellant in that Court) were made by the Principal Member and her delegate under ss 100 and 101 of the Act respectively. Those provisions are as follows:100 Dismissal of an application(1)The SSAT Principal Member may, on the request of a party or on his or her own initiative, dismiss and application for review of a decision if:…(c)all of the parties consent;…101Parties to reviews(1)The parties to a review under this Part are:(a)the applicant; and(b)the Registrar; and(c)any other person who was entitled to apply for review of the decision under section 89; and…(5)the SSAT Principal Member may direct that a party to a review no longer be a party to the review if:…(c)the party fails to comply with a direction or order of the SSAT or of the SSAT Principal Member given in relation to the review;…Summary of factual background
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Secondly, in my view, while not expressly dealing with the appellant’s unreasonableness argument, it is necessarily implicit in Halligan FM’s reasons that he did so in rejecting the central focus of the appellant’s case relating to prejudice. In particular, I consider that his Honour’s rejection of the appellant’s judicial review ground of unreasonableness is implicit in [57] of his Honour’s reasons for judgment and, in particular, in the last sentence thereof:In the result, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the SSAT Principal Member failed to consider the relevant matter he contended she failed to consider in exercising the power to remove him as a party to the review proceedings before the SSAT. He has thus failed to demonstrate any reason to set that decision aside (emphasis added). In my view, his Honour’s reference to the appellant having failed to demonstrate “any reason” to set aside the Principal Member’s decision to remove the appellant as a party is an implicit reference to each of the three grounds of judicial review raised by the appellant in respect of this aspect of the matter, including unreasonableness. Finally, as the appellant accepted during the oral hearing before me, even if he were to fail in this appeal, it is open to him, despite the removal decision, to re-apply to the SSAT for a review of the Registrar’s original decision regarding his child support assessments and to seek an extension of time under s 91 of the Act. Any such application for an extension of time would presumably be considered by the SSAT on its merits and take into account the somewhat unusual circumstances of this matter which have resulted in the restoration of the original decision of the Registrar’s delegate. For all these reasons, I consider that the appeal should be dismissed. There is no need to make any order for costs. As noted above, the first to fourth respondents inclusively all filed submitting appearances and the Commonwealth did not seek any order for costs.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.