Nair-Marshall v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services

[2005] FCA 1341

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Nair-Marshall v Secretary, Department of Family & Community Services
[2005] FCA 1341

Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) s 1061PB(2)(b)(i)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43

Hughes v Western Australia Cricket Association (Inc)& Ors (1986) ATPR 40-748 referred to
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72 referred to
Scott v Secretary, Department of Social Security (No 2) [2000] FCA 1450 referred to

OWEN NAIR-MARSHALL v SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES

No QUD 8 of 2005

SPENDER J
23 SEPTEMBER 2005
BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	QUD 8 OF 2005

BETWEEN:	OWEN NAIR-MARSHALL APPLICANT
AND:	SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	SPENDER J
DATE OF ORDER:	23 SEPTEMBER 2005
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant pay the costs of the respondent of and incidental to the application, to be taxed if not agreed.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	QUD 8 OF 2005

BETWEEN:	OWEN NAIR-MARSHALL APPLICANT
AND:	SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	SPENDER J
DATE:	23 SEPTEMBER 2005
PLACE:	BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 24 August 2005 I dismissed an appeal by the applicant, Mr Owen Nair-Marshall, from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in relation to the applicant’s claim that he was entitled to a Pensioner Education Supplement under s 1061PB(2)(b)(i) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth). I indicated then that there seemed to me to be no reason why the ordinary order as to costs should not be made, but that the applicant would have seven days within which to make submissions concerning the orders for costs which should be made, and if the applicant made such submissions, the submissions by the respondent be filed within a further seven days.

2. The applicant in his written submissions said in part:

   ‘1.As an unrepresented applicant to the Court, I concede it was unrealistic to attempt an interpretation of statute law.

   2.The whole of the Social Security Act, and in particularly in my case the Pension Education Supplement provisions, are complex and cause great concern not only to myself but to the great majority who have to deal with it.

   …

   6.The mainstream media has reported the same things coming out of the budgets namely that the Government want to have pensioners of all types being able to return to remunerative work and that the government will assist them to do so.

   7.My reward for attempting to attract the Pensioner Education Supplement so that I could retrain and resume remunerative work is that I am no[w] to be delivered to the hands of the governments Department and have costs awarded against me.

   8.The reward the government will receive is that it can make any statement in Parliament and in its papers and claim immunity.  In effect it…