Suzor v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services

[2004] FCA 1378

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Suzor v Secretary, Department of Family & Community Services
[2004] FCA 1378

Crimes Act (1914) (Cth)
Social Security Act1991 (Cth) ss 1222A, 1223, 1223(1AB), 1230C

GREGORY JOHN SUZOR v SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
Q205 of 2004

KIEFEL J
BRISBANE
22 OCTOBER 2004

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q205 OF 2004

BETWEEN:	GREGORY JOHN SUZOR APPLICANT
AND:	SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	KIEFEL J
DATE OF ORDER:	22 OCTOBER 2004
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application be dismissed.

2.        The applicant pay the respondent’s costs on the application.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q205 OF 2004

BETWEEN:	GREGORY JOHN SUZOR APPLICANT
AND:	SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AND FAMILY COMMUNITY SERVICES RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	KIEFEL J
DATE:	22 OCTOBER 2004
PLACE:	BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Mr Suzor’s application concerns the sum of $182.81, which Centrelink has advised him was overpaid to him and is therefore to be repaid.  He seeks injunctive relief and relies upon provisions of the Crimes Act (1914) (Cth) (‘Crimes Act’), and numerous provisions of the Social Security Act1991 (Cth) (‘Social Security Act’).  It is alleged by him that the monies are ‘unacknowledged’, by which he means disputed by him as a debt, and that they should remain in his possession until all his avenues of appeal and review are completed.

2. Clearly, the Commonwealth is able to recover such overpayments as a debt, see ss 1222A, 1223 and 1223(1AB) of the Social Security Act. The Commonwealth is entitled to recover a debt by one of the means set out in s 1230C. Such action is not unlawful. Indeed, Mr Suzor in his oral submissions today acknowledged that the Commonwealth had such a right. He said that that was not in issue. It does not seem that he puts forward a case that the Commonwealth is unable to pursue the matter in the way in which it does.

3. His point is more limited, and has to do with the time in which he says the Commonwealth may demand monies from him.  He points to the fact that it has six years in which to recover a debt, under the Act.  He sees this as a legislative intention to permit his legal process to be undertaken before recovery is initiated.  He submits that having regard to the time which the Commonwealth has, it is moving too early to recover its debt from him.

4. The submission misunderstands that the provision to which he refers is simply one of limitation upon the time within which the Commonwealth can recover, and after which it cannot.  It does not carry the implication for which he contends. 

5. The provisions of the Crimes Act are irrelevant.  There is no prohibition on the Commonwealth, and the applicant cannot point to any statutory provision by which the Court is to grant a stay or injunction. 

6. In these circumstances, there would seem no basis in law for the granting of an injunction.  In any event, the circumstances would not warrant the exercise of a discretion.  These proceedings should not in my view have been brought, and the application will be dismissed.

7. I  see no reason not to follow the usual course in relation to costs.  There does not seem to me to be any public interest point here involved.  I will order that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs on the application.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Kiefel.

Associate:

Dated:             22 October 2004

For the Applicant:	In Person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms C Cameron
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	22 October 2004
Date of Judgment:	22 October 2004