Young v D.F.A.C.S - [2002] FMCA 369

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

YOUNG v D.F.A.C.S

[2002] FMCA 369

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act1975
Social Security Act1991, ss.885(1) & (2); 891; 1223 subparagraph (3), 1237A(1); 1069H(2) & (3)

Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001

Brown v Repatriation Commission (1985) 60 ALR 289
Waterford v Commonwealth (1987) 71 ALR 673
Blackwood Hodge Australia Pty Ltd v Collector of Customs No 2 (1983) Australian Law Digest 38
Polites v FCT (1988) 16 Australian Law Digest 707
Linel v Repatriation Commission (1982) 4ACN

Appellant:

MONIQUE YOUNG

Respondent:

SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY & COMMUNITY SERVICES

File No:

BZ 54 of 2001

Delivered on:

15 October 2002

Delivered at:

Brisbane

Hearing Date:

5 September 2001

Judgment of:

Rimmer FM

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Appellant:

Appellant appeared in person

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

That the notice of appeal filed by the APPLICANT on 22 November 2000 be dismissed.
That the APPLICANT is to pay the costs of the RESPONDENT pursuant to Rule 21.10 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 such costs to be fixed in the sum of $3,500.00 and are to be paid by the APPLICANT to the RESPONDENT within 6 months of today’s date.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
BRISBANE

BZ 54 of 2001

MONIQUE YOUNG

Appellant

And

SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY & COMMUNITY SERVICES

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Proceedings

This matter involves an appeal by Monique Young, the Appellant, against a decision given on 27 October 2000 by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal constituted by Senior Member K.L. Beddoe. The respondent to the appeal is the Secretary of the Department of Family and Community Services.

Appeal

The appeal was filed on 22 November 2000, and was remitted to this Court by order of Cooper J of the Federal Court of Australia on

5 February 2001. The power of the Federal Court to transfer to this Court, the Federal Magistrates Court, is contained in section 44AA(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.
The Appellant appeared representing herself and made oral submissions. The respondent was represented by the Australian Government Solicitor and filed written submissions and presented oral argument in addition to those written submissions. I reserve my decision, which is delivered today.

History

This matter arises as a result of an overpayment made to Mrs Young of Family Allowance from Centrelink for the relevant period 17 June 1999 to 6 February 2000 in the sum of $1894.25. This overpayment arose because on 6 June 1999 the Appellant and her husband, just after their marriage, estimated in documentation to Centrelink that their combined total income for the 1998/1999 tax year would be in the sum of $33,000. On 6 June 1999 the Appellant and her husband requested that the Appellant's entitlement to Family Allowance be based upon that estimate. On 2 October 1999 the Appellant and her husband confirmed their estimate of their taxable income for the 1998/1999 year was $33,000.
It is clear from the facts that the Appellant and…

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.

Continue reading Young v D.F.A.C.S

Details

AGLC: Young v D.F.A.C.S [2002] FMCA 369
Case: [2002] FMCA 369
Decision Date: 15 October 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Federal Court Rules. The case of Young versus D.F.A.C.S involved the applicant, Young, appealing against a decision made by the Department of Family and Community Services (D.F.A.C.S). The Federal Court was tasked with determining the validity of the appeal and the associated legal implications. The central issue before the court was whether the applicant's notice of appeal was validly filed and if the court had jurisdiction to hear the matter. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the applicant had demonstrated any grounds for the appeal that warranted further consideration. The court meticulously reviewed the procedural aspects of the appeal, including the timeliness and formality of the notice of appeal. It was determined that the notice of appeal did not comply with the necessary procedural requirements, leading to the conclusion that the appeal was not validly filed. As a result, the court found that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and dismissed the application. The court also ordered the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the respondent, as per Rule 21.10 of the Federal Court Rules. This ruling underscored the importance of adhering to procedural rules when filing appeals to ensure that the court's resources are not wasted on invalid applications.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the notice of appeal filed by the APPLICANT on 22 November 2000 be dismissed.

That the APPLICANT is to pay the costs of the RESPONDENT pursuant to Rule 21.10 of the

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.