Zoia v Commonwealth Ombudsman Department

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Zoia v Commonwealth Ombudsman Department [2007] FCAFC 143

ANGELO ZOIA v COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN DEPARTMENT
WAD 57 OF 2007

SPENDER, FRENCH AND GILMOUR JJ
1 AUGUST 2007
PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	WAD 57 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	ANGELO ZOIA Appellant
AND:	COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN DEPARTMENT Respondent

JUDGES:	SPENDER, FRENCH AND GILMOUR JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	1 AUGUST 2007
WHERE MADE:	PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed, with costs.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	WAD 57 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	ANGELO ZOIA Appellant
AND:	COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN DEPARTMENT Respondent

JUDGES:	SPENDER, FRENCH AND GILMOUR JJ
DATE:	1 AUGUST 2007
PLACE:	PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

SPENDER J:

1This is an appeal from a judgment of Nicholson J given on 1 March 2007.  The background to the appeal is that on 18 April 2006, Mr Zoia (the appellant) applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT) for a review of a decision made by a delegate of the Commonwealth Ombudsman on 22 March 2006, under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth).

2On 17 July 2006, a Deputy President of the AAT dismissed the application for review pursuant to s 42A(2)(a) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), on the basis that the Deputy President was satisfied that the appellant had been given appropriate notice of the time and place of the conference, which had been scheduled for 4 July 2006, and had failed to appear at the conference.

3Mr Zoia then sought reinstatement of his application for review.  That matter was listed for hearing before the AAT on 6 September 2006.  Mr Zoia failed to appear at the hearing of that application and on that day, the AAT refused the application for reinstatement. 

4Deputy President Hotop, in the course of his reasons for that decision, said that the applicant had not provided any substantial grounds in support of his application for reinstatement.  He also said:

In his request for reinstatement, he does not provide any explanation as to why he failed to appear on the previous occasion, nor does he make any or give any substantive reason why on the merits his application should be reinstated.  All he does is basically ask a series of questions which really don’t take this matter any further.

5On 15 September 2006, Mr Zoia filed a notice of appeal from the AAT decision in the Federal Court of Australia.  On 10 January 2007, the respondent, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, filed a Notice of Motion seeking that the appeal be dismissed. 

6In support of that motion, an affidavit of Mr Todd Renfrey Hill was filed. The final paragraph of that affidavit contains a request that the proceeding be dismissed pursuant to…