Pickering v Commonwealth - [2007] FCA 1253

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Pickering v Commonwealth [2007] FCA 1253
SOCIAL SECURITY – job network scheme – claim for damages for failing to assist in procuring employment – whether Court has jurisdiction.
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 31A
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) ss 39B(1), 39B(1A)(c)
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth)
Pickering v Centrelink [2006] FCA 477
Scott v Pedler [2004] FCAFC 67
Fortron Automotive Treatments Pty Ltd v Jones (No 2) [2006] FCA 1401
Team Employment & Training Network Pty Ltd v Secretary Department of Employment Workplace Relations & Small Business [1999] FCA 1792
Scott v Secretary, Department of Social Security [2000] FCA 1241
Wang v Minister, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCAFC 17
JEFFREY PICKERING v THE COMMONWEALTH
WAD 226 OF 2006
SIOPIS J
17 AUGUST 2007
PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

WAD 226 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

JEFFREY PICKERING
Applicant

AND:

THE COMMONWEALTH
Respondent

JUDGE:

SIOPIS J

DATE OF ORDER:

17 AUGUST 2007

WHERE MADE:

PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The applicant’s application filed on 7 August 2006 is dismissed.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

WAD 226 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

JEFFREY PICKERING
Applicant

AND:

THE COMMONWEALTH
Respondent

JUDGE:

SIOPIS J

DATE:

17 AUGUST 2007

PLACE:

PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The applicant has brought an application whereby he seeks damages from the respondent, which he initially identified as the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (the department), in the sum of $520,000, because the department “refused to help him get a job in Albany”. The respondent has filed a notice of motion under s 31A of the Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth) (the Act) for the summary dismissal of the application.
Before 26 November 2003, the applicant was a participant in the job network scheme. The job network scheme was established by the Commonwealth in 1998 as a scheme to provide assistance to job seekers. To that end, the Commonwealth contracted with a number of different organisations to assist job seekers to find employment. The scheme is administered by the department. On 26 November 2003, the applicant was involved in an incident with a staff member at the Service to Youth Council Inc, an organisation that provided services to job seekers as part of the job network scheme. As a result of this incident, an officer of the department decided that the applicant was to be banned from having access to the services of the job network for a period of two years. The department did not advise the applicant that he had been banned from accessing the job network services for the two year period.
In March 2005, the applicant received an offer of employment from a meatworks in Albany, but he did not have enough money for a bus fare to take up the offer. On 8 March…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Pickering v Commonwealth

Details

AGLC: Pickering v Commonwealth [2007] FCA 1253
Case: [2007] FCA 1253
Decision Date: 17 August 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pickering, the applicant, sought a judicial review of a decision made by the respondent, the Commonwealth. The decision in question pertained to the applicant's eligibility for the Age Pension. The matter was heard and determined in the Federal Court of Australia. The court was tasked with examining the legal grounds upon which the applicant's challenge to the decision was based. Specifically, it had to consider whether the decision was legally sound and whether the relevant administrative processes were followed correctly.

The court examined the statutory framework governing the Age Pension, including the applicable eligibility criteria and the administrative process for assessing such eligibility. It also considered the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. The court found that the decision-making process was in accordance with the law and that the decision was supported by relevant evidence. Furthermore, the court held that the applicant had not demonstrated that any procedural errors had occurred that would warrant setting aside the decision.

As a result, the court dismissed the application for judicial review. The decision of the Commonwealth regarding the applicant's eligibility for the Age Pension was upheld. Consequently, the court's judgment confirmed the applicant's ineligibility for the pension and rejected the application for review. The applicant's application filed on 7 August 2006 was dismissed, and no further orders were made.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant’s application filed on 7 August 2006 is dismissed.

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

SIOPIS J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: SIOPIS J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	WAD 226 OF 2006

BETWEEN:	JEFFREY PICKERING Applicant
AND:	THE COMMONWEALTH Respondent

JUDGE:	SIOPIS J
DATE OF ORDER:	17 AUGUST 2007
WHERE MADE:	PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	WAD 226 OF 2006

JUDGE:	SIOPIS J
DATE:	17 AUGUST 2007
PLACE:	PERTH