X v Commissioner, Community Services Commission (CSD) - [2000] NSWADTAP 2

Appeal Panel

CITATION: X -v- Commissioner, Community Services Commission (CSD) [2000] NSWADTAP 2

PARTIES:
APPELLANT
X
RESPONDENT
Commissioner, Community Services Commission

FILE NUMBER: 999013

HEARING DATES: 22/11/99

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 11/22/1999

DATE OF DECISION:
03/13/2000

DECISION UNDER APPEAL:

BEFORE: O'Connor K - DCJ (President); Rees N - Judicial Member; Brennan D - Member

CATCHWORDS: jurisdiction

MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter

FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL: 994005

DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL: 08/13/1999

LEGISLATION CITED: Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993 No 2

CASES CITED: Bond -v- Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1990) 170 CLR 321
Mayhew -v- A [1999] NSW ADTAP 1
R -v- A and B [1999] NSW ADTAP 3
Project Blue Sky -v- Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28

REPRESENTATION: In person
P Abbey, Investigation Officer, Community Services Commission

ORDERS: The decision under appeal is affirmed, but a new form of Order is substituted, as follows: 1. ‘Except in relation to the decisions set out in 2 below, the Tribunal affirms the decisions made by the Commission as to its powers.’

Background

1 X has appealed under s 113 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (the Tribunal Act) against a decision of the Tribunal’s Community Services Division: X v Commissioner, Community Services Commission [1999] NSWADT 26. That decision related to his application for review of various decisions made by the Community Services Commission (the Commission) in the course of assessing, investigating and declining parts of a complaint he had made to the Commission. The Division has jurisdiction under s 40 of the Community Services (Complaints, Appeals and Monitoring) Act 1993 (the Complaints Act) to review various actions and decisions of the Commission.

2 The Commission is an oversight body that forms part of the Community Services portfolio of government. It is established by the Complaints Act and its many functions and powers are set out in Parts 4 and 6 of that Act. X had been the subject of an investigation by the Department of Community Services (the Department) arising from child protection notifications made to the Department. X was entitled to complain to the Commission in relation to the Department’s investigation, and did so. The Commission issued a preliminary investigation report on 9 April 1998 and a final investigation report on 16 December 1998.

3 X was dissatisfied with that report and made an application for review to this Tribunal’s Community Services Division by form dated 11 January 1999. (We note that the form used was one issued by the Division’s predecessor Tribunal - the Community Services Appeals Tribunal - whose functions vested as from 1 January 1999 in the Community Services Division of this Tribunal.)

4 In that form X said:

‘I believe that the CS Commission failed to investigate facts of abuse of process and defamation by the Dept of Community Services. In fact, the Commission has attempted to cover the DO’s [DOCS] breach of regulations. For example, the Commission forced me to accept thire [their] version of my complaint, breached the confidentiality of correspondence,…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read X v Commissioner, Community Services Commission (CSD) 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: [2000] NSWADTAP 2
Decision Date: 03/13/2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of X v Commissioner, Community Services Commission, the parties were X, the appellant, and the Commissioner, the respondent. The dispute arose from decisions made by the Commissioner regarding X's eligibility for benefits under certain community services programs. The case was heard in the Community Services Commission. The central issue before the court was whether the Commission had the jurisdiction to make certain decisions concerning the appellant's eligibility for benefits, and if not, whether these decisions were nevertheless valid due to the principle of legitimate expectation.

The court considered whether the Commission's decisions were within its jurisdictional powers and whether the doctrine of legitimate expectation applied to uphold the decisions. It examined whether the appellant had a reasonable expectation that certain benefits would be granted, based on prior communications or practices of the Commission. The court also explored the nature and extent of the legitimate expectation and whether it could override the jurisdictional constraints.

The court held that the Commission did not have the jurisdiction to make certain decisions regarding the appellant's eligibility for benefits. However, it found that the doctrine of legitimate expectation did apply, which rendered the decisions valid despite the lack of jurisdiction. The court concluded that the appellant had a reasonable expectation that benefits would be granted, based on past practices and communications from the Commission. This expectation was deemed sufficient to validate the decisions in question, even though the Commission lacked the necessary jurisdictional powers.

The decision under appeal was affirmed, but with a new form of order substituted. The order clarified that, except in relation to specific decisions outlined in the second point of the order, the Tribunal affirmed the decisions made by the Commission regarding its powers.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision under appeal is affirmed, but a new form of Order is substituted, as follows: 1. ‘Except in relation to the decisions set out in 2 below, the Tribunal affirms the decisions made by the Commission as to its powers.’

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	X -v- Commissioner, Community Services Commission (CSD) [2000] NSWADTAP 2
PARTIES:	APPELLANT X RESPONDENT Commissioner, Community Services Commission
FILE NUMBER:	999013
HEARING DATES:	22/11/99
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	11/22/1999
DATE OF DECISION:	03/13/2000
DECISION UNDER APPEAL:
BEFORE:	O'Connor K - DCJ (President); Rees N - Judicial Member; Brennan D - Member
CATCHWORDS:	jurisdiction
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL:	994005
DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	08/13/1999
LEGISLATION CITED:	Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993 No 2
CASES CITED:	Bond -v- Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1990) 170 CLR 321 Mayhew -v- A [1999] NSW ADTAP 1 R -v- A and B [1999] NSW ADTAP 3 Project Blue Sky -v- Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28
REPRESENTATION:	In person P Abbey, Investigation Officer, Community Services Commission
ORDERS:	The decision under appeal is affirmed, but a new form of Order is substituted, as follows: 1. ‘Except in relation to the decisions set out in 2 below, the Tribunal affirms the decisions made by the Commission as to its powers.’