Oxgrove and Principal Member Social Security Appeals Tribunal and Anor

In *Oxgrove and Principal Member Social Security Appeals Tribunal and Anor*, Judge Scarlett of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered an application for judicial review concerning a Direction to Produce Documents issued under section 103K of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth). The applicant, Mr Oxgrove, sought to set aside this direction, which had been issued to him by the First Respondent (the Principal Member of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal) in relation to a child support matter involving his son and former daughter-in-law. Mr Oxgrove contended that the documents sought pertained to his personal and financial affairs, not those of his son, and that their production would cause him significant prejudice.

The court was required to determine whether the Direction to Produce Documents was validly made. Specifically, the applicant argued that the decision to issue the direction constituted a denial of procedural fairness, an improper exercise of power under section 103K of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988*, and was so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have made it. Further grounds for review included the assertion that the Principal Member failed to consider relevant matters, namely the prima facie irrelevance of the documents to the proceedings, and that the Principal Member lacked jurisdiction to make the decision.

Judge Scarlett reasoned that for judicial review to succeed, several jurisdictional and substantive requirements must be met, including the court having jurisdiction, the issue being justiciable, the applicant having standing, a ground of review being available, the court having power to grant a remedy, and no legislation precluding review. The court found that these requirements were satisfied. Applying the principles of procedural fairness, the court considered the applicant's assertion that he was denied the opportunity to be heard regarding the direction. Furthermore, the court examined whether the decision to issue the direction was an improper exercise of power, particularly in light of the applicant's claim that the documents sought were not relevant to the child support proceedings and that their disclosure would cause prejudice. The court also considered the *Wednesbury* unreasonableness test.

The court ordered that the Direction to Produce Documents made by the First Respondent to the Applicant on 19 May 2015 be set aside. The court also made provision for any application for costs to be made within 28 days, supported by an affidavit detailing the costs sought and their basis, with a further 14 days allowed for any response.