Peric v Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations

Case [2011] FCA 649


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Peric v Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2011] FCA 649

Citation: Peric v Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [211] FCA 649
Appeal from: Peric and Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2011] AATA 314
Parties: NATASHA PERIC v THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS
File number: VID 991 of 2010
Judge: TRACEY J
Date of judgment: 3 June 2011
Legislation:

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 44

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 31A

Date of hearing: 3 June 2011
Place: Melbourne
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 9
Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms P Heffernan
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 991 of 2010

ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN:

NATASHA PERIC
Applicant

AND:

THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS
Respondent

JUDGE:

TRACEY J

DATE OF ORDER:

3 JUNE 2011

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1Pursuant to O 13, r 2 of the Federal Court Rules the title of the proceeding be amended to substitute as respondent the Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. 

2Judgment be entered for the respondent pursuant to s 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).

3The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding including the costs of the motion, notice of which was given on 25 May 2011.

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 991 of 2010

ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN:

NATASHA PERIC
Applicant

AND:

THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS
Respondent

JUDGE:

TRACEY J

DATE:

3 JUNE 2011

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. By application filed on 19 November 2010, Ms Natasha Peric sought to challenge an unidentified decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) concerning her entitlement to certain social security benefits. 

  2. It has emerged that the Tribunal had made no such decision and the grounds on which relief was sought plainly can have no relevance to a decision which, as I have already said, had not at the relevant time been made. 

  3. Subsequently, a series of directions hearings were held because it was not clear what the position was in relation to the tribunal’s handling of Ms Peric’s application, and it was not until earlier this year that the position was clarified and the facts that I have just recounted were established. 

  4. By notice of motion dated 25 May 2011 the respondent, who is identified as Centrelink, has moved the court for orders removing Centrelink as the respondent and substituting the Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.  Centrelink is not a relevant entity under the legislation and the decision, if there had been one, would originally have been made by a delegate of the Secretary, and it would have been that decision which would have been the subject of the Tribunal’s attention.  It is appropriate therefore, that the Secretary be substituted for Centrelink as the respondent to the proceeding. 

  5. The respondent also seeks summary judgment under section 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) on the basis that Ms Peric has no reasonable prospects of successfully prosecuting the purported appeal.

  6. Ms Peric has filed an affidavit in response to the notice of motion in which she says that she wishes to appeal against a decision that was made by the Tribunal on 12 May 2011 and she advances certain grounds for challenging that decision. 

  7. The affidavit clearly highlights the hopeless nature of the application that is presently before the Court, and in the absence of any decision of the Tribunal, there is no basis for an appeal under s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) or for judicial review.

  8. Accordingly, I consider it appropriate that summary judgment should be given under s 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act and an order to that effect will be made. 

  9. Ms Peric will, of course, be free, should she be so minded and so advised, to challenge the decision of the Tribunal which was handed down on 12 May 2011 and with which she is plainly, judging by the terms of her affidavit sworn today, dissatisfied.

I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Tracey.

Associate:

Dated:       3 June 2011

Details
AGLC
Peric v Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2011] FCA 649
Case
[2011] FCA 649
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Peric v Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations involved the applicant, Peric, challenging a decision made by the respondent, originally the Secretary of the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, and later amended to be the Secretary of the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, regarding a matter that was not detailed in the provided text. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with resolving the dispute.

The court had to determine several legal issues, including whether the respondent’s decision was lawful, rational, and procedurally fair. The applicant argued that the decision-making process was flawed, while the respondent maintained that the decision was made in accordance with the relevant legislative and regulatory frameworks. The court was also required to consider the scope of judicial review available under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth).

In its judgment, the court found that the respondent's decision was lawful and that the applicant's challenge to the decision did not meet the threshold for judicial review. The court held that the decision was made according to the applicable laws, was rational, and adhered to proper procedural requirements. Consequently, the applicant’s grounds for review were dismissed, and the court ruled in favour of the respondent. The court also ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs associated with the proceeding, including those incurred during the motion.

Orders

Orders of the court

1 Pursuant to O 13, r 2 of the Federal Court Rules the title of the proceeding be amended to substitute as respondent the Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.

2 Judgment be entered for the respondent pursuant to s 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).

3 The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding including the costs of the motion, notice of which was given on 25 May 2011.

Note:

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.