Mori v Secretary, Department of Social Services

In the matter of Mori v Secretary, Department of Social Services, the Federal Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the dismissal of an appeal by the applicant, Ms Mori, against the Social Security Appeals Tribunal’s (SSAT) refusal to reinstate her previous application. The Tribunal had dismissed Ms Mori’s application for reinstatement of her appeal against a decision by the Secretary to recover an overpayment of the age pension. The primary legal issue before the Court was whether Ms Mori’s appeal raised a question of law, as required under section 44(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth). The Court also needed to determine if Ms Mori's application for reinstatement was made within 28 days of the dismissal notice, as mandated by section 42A(8) of the same Act, or if the dismissal was in error, permitting reinstatement under section 42A(10).

The Court found that Ms Mori’s submissions did not frame any questions of law but rather sought to revisit factual matters that had already been addressed by the Tribunal. According to the Court, the existence of a question of law is essential for the Court to exercise its jurisdiction, as highlighted in the case of Rana v Repatriation Commission. The Court held that Ms Mori’s appeal amounted to an attempt to seek merits review, which is impermissible under section 44 of the AAT Act. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Additionally, the Court concluded that Ms Mori's application for reinstatement was not made within the required 28-day period, nor was the dismissal of her application in error. Consequently, the Court found no basis to reinstate the application.

The final orders of the Court were that the appeal be dismissed and that Ms Mori pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal. The costs order reflects the procedural rules outlined in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.