Radicic v Australian Postal Corp

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Radicic v Australian Postal Corp [1999] FCA 574

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – appeal under s 44(1) Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) - no question of principle

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 44(1)
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) ss 24(1)(a), 24(2)(a), 24A
Federal Court Rules, O 53 r 3(2)

ANTHONY MARK RADICIC v AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION
NG 867 of 1998

BRANSON J
SYDNEY
14 APRIL 1999

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 867 of 1998

BETWEEN:	ANTHONY MARK RADICIC Applicant
AND:	AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION Respondent
JUDGE:	BRANSON J
DATE OF ORDER:	14 APRIL 1999
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The application be dismissed.
The applicant is to pay costs of the respondent.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 867 of 1998

BETWEEN:	ANTHONY MARK RADICIC Applicant
AND:	AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION Respondent

JUDGE:	BRANSON J
DATE:	14 APRIL 1999
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (EX TEMPORE)

1. This is a purported “appeal” under s 44(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (“the AAT Act”). Such an appeal must be an appeal on a question of law. The Federal Court does not sit to rehear matters heard and determined by the Administrative Appeal Tribunal (“the AAT”) or to reconsider the merits of administrative decisions made within government agencies.

2. Section 44(2A) of the AAT Act requires that an appeal to the Federal Court under s 44(1) be instituted “in such a manner as may be prescribed by rules of court made under the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976”.  Orders 53 r 3(2) of the Federal Court Rules requires that a notice of appeal from the decision of the AAT state the questions of law to be raised on the appeal, the orders sought, and briefly, but specifically, the grounds relied upon in support of the appeal.  The present notice of appeal not only fails to comply with the requirements of    O 53 r 3(2), it is, in my view, in part scandalous and vexatious.  It may be noted that, although the notice of appeal refers on occasions to “my client”, it has plainly been drawn, as other parts of the document make clear, by the applicant himself.

3. The background to the applicant's application to the AAT is a request made by him to the respondent seeking access to two money orders allegedly purchased by him during 1990.  One of the money orders, the applicant alleges, was issued between 15 May 1990 and 12 June 1990 in an amount between $354.00 and $364.00 and was payable to the Road Transport Authority.  The other is said to have been issued between 21 August 1990 and 19 September 1990 in an amount between $114.00 and $144.00 and payable to the New South Wales Police Department at Parramatta.  The significance of the money orders is apparently…