FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Department of Family & Community Services v Sammut [1999] FCA 1298
No question of principle
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY & COMMUNITY SERVICES v ANNETTE SAMMUT
N 683 OF 1999
HELY J
10 SEPTEMBER 1999
SYDNEY
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
N 683 OF 1999 |
|
BETWEEN: |
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY & COMMUNITY SERVICES Applicant
|
|
AND: |
ANNETTE SAMMUT Respondent
|
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
|
|
WHERE MADE: |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application is dismissed.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
N 683 OF 1999 |
|
BETWEEN: |
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY & COMMUNITY SERVICES Applicant
|
|
AND: |
Respondent
|
|
JUDGE: |
|
|
DATE: |
|
|
PLACE: |
EXTEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 This is an application by the Secretary of the Department of Family and Community Services seeking a stay of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“AAT”) given in this matter on 16 June 1999, pending an appeal of these proceedings which is expected to come on for hearing in November of this year. The effect of the AAT’s decision was that a sum of about $7,000 is to be returned to Ms Sammut. A stay of that order is sought on the grounds that Ms Sammut might use that money to pay for medical treatment, which apparently she badly needs, and if the money is used for that purpose it might be irrecoverable in the event that the Department succeeds in its appeal.
2 I am not prepared to grant the stay sought essentially for two reasons: first, I inquired of the Department's representative as to whether the Department was prepared to give an undertaking to pay interest on the relevant sum in the event that its appeal was unsuccessful. No such undertaking was forthcoming. Second, I was informed by the Department's representative, and quite properly so informed, that there is a statutory remedy under s 1231 of the Social Security Act 1991 whereby a debt due to the Department, of which this is said to be an example, can be recovered by means of deduction from social security payments.
3 Given those factors, I think that the ordinary principle that Ms Sammut is entitled to the benefit of her success before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal should apply, and that a stay should be refused. A further factor that might be relevant is that the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal might be thought to be essentially a decision on a factual issue as to whether special circumstances existed under the relevant section. It might be difficult to construct an error of law insofar as a review of a decision of that character is sought.
4 For all of those reasons I dismiss the application for a stay of proceedings.
|
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Hely. |
Associate:
Dated: 10 September 1999
|
Solicitor for the Applicant: |
Australian Government Solicitor |
|
|
|
|
|
The respondent represented herself |
|
|
|
|
Date of Hearing: |
10 September 1999 |
|
|
|
|
Date of Judgment: |
10 September 1999 |
