Peric v Centrelink
[2010] FCA 543
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Peric v Centrelink [2010] FCA 543
Citation: Peric v Centrelink [2010] FCA 543 Parties: NATASHA PERIC v CENTRELINK File number(s): VID 288 of 2010 Judge: TRACEY J Date of judgment: 31 May 2010 Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – appeal from decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal– no opportunity to place evidence and submissions before Tribunal – extension of time sought and granted - decision of Tribunal set aside and remitted for re-hearing and re-determination Date of hearing: 31 May 2010 Place: Melbourne Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 8 No appearance for the Appellant Counsel for the Respondent: Ms K Weymouth Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
VID 288 of 2010
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN: NATASHA PERIC
AppellantAND: CENTRELINK
Respondent
JUDGE:
TRACEY J
DATE OF ORDER:
31 MAY 2010
WHERE MADE:
MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Appellant have leave to file her notice of appeal on or before 12 April 2010.
2.The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, affirming the decision of the SSAT, be set aside.
3.The proceeding be remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to be heard and determined according to law.
4.No order as to costs.
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
VID 288 of 2010
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN: NATASHA PERIC
AppellantAND: CENTRELINK
Respondent
JUDGE:
TRACEY J
DATE:
31 MAY 2010
PLACE:
MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 12 November 2009 the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (“the SSAT”) affirmed a decision of the Authorised Review Officer at Centrelink. That decision was that compulsory participation requirements were to apply to the payment of Ms Natasha Peric’s Parenting Payment. Ms Peric lodged an appeal against the decision of the SSAT in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the AAT”). By order dated 22 December 2009 a Senior Member of the AAT stayed the operation of the SSAT decision pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.
The appeal to the AAT was listed for hearing on 16 February 2010. The letter from the AAT advising Ms Peric of the appeal date was addressed to her at “11 Berton Cres Hillside Vic 3037.” Ms Peric’s address is, in fact, “11 Berthon Crescent, Hillside Vic 3037.” When the matter was called on for hearing at the AAT on 16 February 2010 Ms Peric was not present. The AAT affirmed the SSAT’s decision. Oral reasons were given.
On 12 April 2010 Ms Peric lodged an appeal in this Court against the decision of the AAT. She also sought an extension of time within which to file and serve the notice of appeal. Her appeal and the application were accompanied by an affidavit. In that affidavit Ms Peric deposed that she was unaware of the AAT hearing and that she only found out on 7 April 2010 that the decision had been made. She became aware of the decision when she did not receive her expected Parenting Payment and contacted Centrelink to find out why it had not been credited to her bank account.
The application for an extension of time came on before North J on 10 May 2010. His Honour adjourned the matter to a date to be fixed in order for enquiries to be made about the circumstances in which attempts had been made to notify Ms Peric of the hearing before the AAT.
As North J was proceeding on leave the application and the appeal were transferred to my docket.
I listed the matter for mention this morning. The solicitor for the Respondent advised the Court that the foreshadowed enquiries had been made. As a result Centrelink was prepared to accept that it was more likely than not that Ms Peric did not have notice of the hearing before the AAT. Centrelink was prepared to consent to orders setting aside the decision of the AAT and remitting the matter for further hearing. This was because Ms Peric had been denied the opportunity to place evidence and submissions before the AAT. In other words she had not received procedural fairness. This was not, of course, by reason of any deliberate denial of her rights by the AAT. The AAT proceeded, as it was entitled to do, on the assumption that Ms Peric was aware of the hearing and had chosen, for whatever reason, not to attend.
The documents which initiated the appeal and sought the extension of time are lacking in detail and might properly have been the subject of objection. Centrelink has chosen not to make such objections. Ms Peric is an unrepresented litigant who would seem to be in financial distress. In the circumstances I consider that Centrelink has adopted the preferable approach. Given the urgency of the matter and the willingness of Centrelink to consent to orders, I propose to order that, if an extension of time for lodgement of her appeal is necessary, such leave be granted to Ms Peric; that the decision of the AAT be set aside; and that the matter be remitted to the AAT to be reheard and determined. There should be no order as to costs.
I should conclude by stressing that my decision to set aside the AAT’s orders is a decision wholly unrelated to the merits of Ms Peric’s appeal from the SSAT. Whether or not that appeal succeeds when it is reheard by the AAT will depend entirely upon the AAT’s assessment of the evidence and submissions made by the parties in the course of that hearing.
I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Tracey. Associate:
Dated: 31 May 2010
1
0
0