Singh v Minister for Government Services

Link copied
Case Copied 31 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Singh v Minister for Government Services [2024] FCA 368

File number(s): SAD 142 of 2023
Judgment of: NESKOVCIN J
Date of judgment: 16 April 2024
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – application for judicial review of decision made under Scheme for Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration – non-statutory scheme – substitution of proper respondent – whether non-statutorily based administrative actions are amenable to prerogative relief – whether the Court has jurisdiction to grant relief under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) – jurisdictional error – failure to take into account relevant considerations – error of law – procedural fairness – reasonable apprehension of bias – improper exercise of power
Legislation: Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) ss 39B(1), 39B(1A)
Cases cited:

Barnett v Minister for Health and Aged Care [2023] FCA 1139

Carltona Ltd v Commissioners of Works [1943] 2 All ER 560

Davis v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 10; (2023) 408 ALR 381

Davis v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2021) 288 FCR 23

Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337

Hossain v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 264 CLR 123

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 206 CLR 323

NABE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (No 2) (2004) 144 FCR 1
Division: General Division
Registry: South Australia
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Number of paragraphs: 89
Date of last submission: 28 March 2024
Date of hearing: 15 February 2024, 19 March 2024
Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr A Chan
Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore Lawyers

ORDERS

SAD 142 of 2023
BETWEEN:

JASBIR KAUR BALBIR SINGH

Applicant
AND:

MINISTER FOR GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

NESKOVCIN J

DATE OF ORDER:

16 APRIL 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Pursuant to r 9.11 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the Minister for Government Services is substituted as the respondent.

2.The application is dismissed.

3.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceeding.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

NESKOVCIN J:

  1. By origination application dated 7 October 2023, the applicant, Ms Balbir Singh, seeks relief pursuant to s 39B(1) or (1A) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) in respect of a decision to decline her claim for compensation from Services Australia under the Scheme for Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration. She has been self-represented in this proceeding.

  2. The Scheme is a non-statutory scheme that allows non-corporate Commonwealth entities to pay compensation in circumstances where a person has suffered detriment as a result of the entity’s defective administration when there is no legal requirement to make a payment. The Scheme is administered by Services Australia. In addition, Services Australia delivers government payments and services, including Centrelink payments. It is one…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Singh v Minister for Government Services and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2024] FCA 368
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Singh v Minister for Government Services involves the applicant, seeking compensation under the Scheme for Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration, which is a non-statutory scheme. The applicant's claim for compensation was rejected by Services Australia, and the applicant sought judicial review of this decision. The Minister for Government Services was substituted as the respondent in the proceeding. The applicant argued that the decision was flawed due to several alleged errors, including failure to consider relevant evidence, procedural unfairness, and an error of law. The court was required to determine whether the non-statutorily based administrative actions were amenable to judicial review, whether the court had jurisdiction to grant relief under section 39B of the Judiciary Act, and whether the decision contained any jurisdictional errors, errors of law, or procedural unfairness.

The court considered the Full Court's decision in Davis v Minister for Immigration, which held that non-statutorily based administrative actions are amenable to judicial review for legal unreasonableness. The court accepted the argument that it had jurisdiction to grant relief under section 39B of the Judiciary Act if the grounds for such relief were established. The court examined the applicant's grounds of review, which included failure to take into account relevant considerations, error of law, and procedural fairness. The court found that the applicant's claim did not extend to any claim in respect of privacy breaches. The court also held that the decision to decline the applicant's claim under the Scheme was not unreasonable, and the applicant's grounds of review did not establish a basis for judicial intervention.

The court dismissed the application and substituted the Minister for Government Services as the respondent. The court held that the applicant's claim or the relief sought in the proceeding did not extend to any claim in respect of privacy breaches. The court also held that the decision to decline the applicant's claim under the Scheme was not unreasonable, and the applicant's grounds of review did not establish a basis for judicial intervention. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the proceeding. The court's decision highlights the importance of ensuring that administrative decisions are made in accordance with the relevant legal framework and that the decision-maker considers all relevant evidence and avoids any bias or procedural unfairness.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to r 9.11 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the Minister for Government Services is substituted as the respondent.

2. The application is dismissed.

3. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceeding.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

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

At the final hearing the applicant asserted that her claim for compensation under the Scheme and the relief she sought in the proceeding also covered various privacy breaches by Services Australia. This claim is not referred to in the compensation application form. Nor is a claim for compensation for privacy breaches referred to in the decision statement in which the applicant’s claim under the Scheme was declined, to which I will come shortly. There was no evidence that the applicant’s claim under the Scheme was expanded to include the claim in relation to the privacy breaches, although the applicant made a submission to this effect. In light of these matters, I do not regard the applicant’s claim or the relief sought in this proceeding as extending to any claim in respect of privacy breaches.THE DECISION TO DECLINE THE APPLICANT’S CLAIM UNDER THE SCHEME On 1 August 2023 an Authorised Officer of Services Australia found that compensation under the Scheme was not payable to the applicant and advised her that she could request a reconsideration of her claim (Compensation Decision). On or around 20 August 2023 the applicant requested a review of the Compensation Decision. Services Australia treated this as a request for reconsideration. On 5 September 2023 a Director of Services Australia decided the additional information provided by the applicant did not support her request for reconsideration and advised the applicant that her claim under the Scheme had been finalised (Reconsideration Decision). Although in the originating application the applicant asks the Court to overturn the Compensation Decision and the subsequent Reconsideration Decision, the grounds of review, to which I will come, refers to specific parts of the Compensation Decision and seek to challenge the decision that the applicant was not entitled to compensation under the Scheme. In these circumstances I proceed on the basis that it is the Compensation Decision to which the grounds of review are directed. The Compensation Decision is set out in a decision statement. The decision statement began by identifying the materials considered. It then identified the criteria for assessing a claim under the Scheme for compensation for detriment caused by defective administration. The decision statement identified six issues to be decided. Before considering those issues, the decision statement set out the reasons the applicant believed she should be paid compensation. In summary, the decision statement referred to the damage caused to the applicant’s front door by the police, that she was in mandatory quarantine in Western Australia in late December 2021, that she says she was told not to lodge claims on her computer due to her physical injury, that when her Disability Support Pension was granted she was informed she had also been granted the COVID-19 emergency payment and, finally, that she had not received a compensation payment from the New Zealand government. The decision statement then set out key background facts, which included statements made by the applicant and other decided facts. In relation to the COVID-19 Crisis Payment, the decision statement noted that the claim was rejected because the applicant did not make a claim within 14 days after the start of the quarantine or isolation period. In relation to the Crisis Payment –Extreme Circumstances, the decision statement noted that the claim was rejected as the claim had not been lodged within 7 days of an extreme circumstance. In relation to the compensation from New Zealand, the decision statement noted that Services Australia does not have any legal capacity or ability to assist the applicant in relation to such a claim.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

The Full Court had dismissed the appeals on a different basis, having found that the impugned departmental decisions were not unreasonable. Relevantly for present purposes, the Full Court found that non-statutorily based administrative actions are amenable to judicial review for legal unreasonableness: Davis v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2021) 288 FCR 23 at 27 [3] (Kenny J), 37 [49]–[50], 38 [54]–[55] (Besanko J), 50–51 [96]–[97], 53 [112]–[113] (Griffiths J), 54 [116]–[118] (Mortimer J, as her Honour then was), 89 [302], 95 [327], 103 [363] (Charlesworth J). In Barnett v Minister for Health and Aged Care [2023] FCA 1139 at [28] – [29], after referring to the Full Court’s decision in Davis v Minister for Immigration, Snaden J proceeded on the basis that the Court had jurisdiction to grant relief under s 39B of the Judiciary Act in an application for judicial review of a Scheme decision. I respectfully agree with the approach Snaden J adopted in Barnett. I infer that the respondent’s position is, and I accept, that in light of the Full Court’s decision in Davis v Minister for Immigration, I should proceed on the basis that the Court has jurisdiction to grant relief under s 39B of the Judiciary Act were the grounds for such relief to be established. GROUNDS OF REVIEW In the originating application, the applicant seeks relief pursuant to s 39B(1) or (1A) of the Judiciary Act to “overturn” the decisions to reject her compensation claim and claims for COVID-19 and “Extenuating Circumstances” Crisis Payments. In effect the applicant seeks an order in the nature of certiorari setting aside the Compensation Decision and an order in the nature of mandamus requiring the Compensation Decision to be made again in accordance with law. I proceed on this basis. Accompanying the originating application is a letter dated 5 September 2023 from the applicant. The applicant accepted at the hearing that this letter sets out the grounds of review which she propounds. Bearing in mind that the applicant is not legally represented it may be accepted that some aspects of her application and grounds of review are expressed in lay-person’s terms. Nevertheless I have construed the grounds of review and the relief sought by the applicant as generously as would seem to be open. That said, the grounds of review identified in the applicant’s letter may fairly be summarised as follows:(1)The Authorised Officer erred in finding that the applicant had not provided any evidence of her trip to South Australia in circumstances where she says that she travelled to South Australia for a medical assessment before returning to Western Australia at which point she was required to quarantine from 14 to 28 December 2021.(2)The Authorised Officer failed to take into account relevant considerations by not considering evidence between 14 December 2021 and 18 February 2022 of multiple telephone calls with Centrelink managers during which the applicant informed them that she was in quarantine at the time and there were ongoing discussions about her health and the ongoing disability support pension assessment process, which were occurring at the same time.(3)The Authorised Officer failed to take into account relevant considerations by not considering evidence that the applicant made contact with Centrelink within 14 days and informed Centrelink that she was in quarantine and the applicant was told that telephone contact was adequate for claim lodgement and that she did not have to lodge an online claim with Centrelink.(4)The Authorised Officer failed to take into account relevant considerations by not considering evidence about the applicant’s physical and mental injuries that affected her ability to lodge claims online in a timely manner.(5)The Authorised Officer erred in not having regard to the lack of assistance from Australian agencies in relation to the applicant’s claim for compensation for injuries and harm sustained in New Zealand.(6)The Authorised Officer made an error of law in deciding that there was a legislative remedy available to the applicant.(7)The Authorised Officer failed to take into account relevant considerations by not considering evidence that had been submitted and accepted by Centrelink that compulsory quarantine was required.(8)The applicant was denied procedural fairness due to a reasonable apprehension of bias against her.(9)The Compensation Decision was an improper exercise of power, abuse of process or was induced or affected by fraud.