Romanov-Hughes and Comcare

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 514

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No V03/1322 & V03/1323

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE  DIVISION		)
Re		ALEXANDER ROMANOV-HUGHES

Applicant

And COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr J Handley, Senior Member

Date21 May 2004

PlaceMelbourne

Decision The application by the respondent to dismiss these applications as frivolous or vexatious is refused.

(Sgd)  J Handley

Senior Member

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – claim by applicant for compensation for back and foot injuries – previous hearings in the Tribunal and findings of fact – application to dismiss – whether proceedings frivolous or vexatious – application dismissed

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s33 and s42B

Re Quinn and Australian Postal Corporation (1992) 15 AAR 519

Attorney-General v Wentworth (1998) 14 NSWLR 481

Comcare v Grimes and Another (1994) 33 ALD 548

Hatchett v Bowater Tutt Industries Pty Ltd (No 2) (1991) 28 FCR 324

Re Matusko and Australian Postal Corporation (1995) 21 AAR 9

Re Mulheron and Australian Telecommunications Corp (1991) 23 ALD 309; 14 AAR 42

Morales v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1998] 334 FCA

REASONS FOR DECISION

21 May 2004 Mr J Handley, Senior Member      

1. The respondent has applied for an Order pursuant to s42B of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (“the Act”) to dismiss both applications lodged by the applicant.

2. Section 42B of the Act is reproduced in the following terms:

42B  Power of Tribunal where a proceeding is frivolous or vexatious

(1)Where an application is made to the Tribunal for the review of a decision, the Tribunal may, at any stage of the proceeding, if it is satisfied that the application is frivolous or vexatious:

(a)dismiss the application; and

(b)if the Tribunal considers it appropriate, on the application of a party to the proceedings, direct that the person who made the application must not, without leave of the Tribunal, make a subsequent application to the Tribunal of a kind or kinds specified in the direction.

(2)A direction given by the Tribunal under paragraph (1) (b) has effect despite any other provision of this Act or a provision of any other Act.

(3)The Tribunal may discharge or vary such a direction.

3. The applicant has issued two applications on 2 December 2003 to review decisions made by Comcare. He has been an applicant in seven previous applications for review before this Tribunal which have resulted in Reasons For Decision being published by three Tribunal Members. He has also been the subject of a previous application to have proceedings dismissed pursuant to s42B of the Act.

4.      In application V1997/806 the applicant sought to review decisions made by Comcare to deny liability with respect to feet and ankle injuries and musculo-skeletal pain behind his knees.  Senior Member Dwyer and Dr Fricker delivered Reasons For Decision on 6 July 1998 affirming the decisions which were then under review.

5.      In 1998 and early 1999 the applicant lodged three further applications (V1998/1379, V1998/1398 and…