Federal Court of Australia

Hennessy v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2026] FCA 778

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The oral application for stay or adjournment made by the applicant on 17 June 2026 be refused.

2.    The Notice of Appeal from a Tribunal lodged by the applicant on 11 May 2026 be dismissed.

3.    Costs follow the event.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

COLLIER J:

1    Before the Court is a Notice of Appeal from a Tribunal lodged by the Applicant, Mr Daniel Hennessy on 11 May 2026. Mr Hennessy sought to appeal the decision of the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) in JXKS and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Practice and procedure) [2026] ARTA 555.

2    Mr Hennessy is a self-represented applicant in the Federal Court proceeding.

3    It is unnecessary for me to discuss the substantive aspects of Mr Hennessy’s appeal. For the reasons that follow, Mr Hennessy’s application must be summarily dismissed because it has no reasonable prospect of success. I dismissed the application in the course of hearing the matter and now provide the following written reasons for decision.

Procedural History

4    The matter was allocated to my docket in late May 2026. I directed, through my associate and the Queensland Registry, that the parties appear before me for a first case management hearing on 17 June 2026.

5    On 15 June 2026, my chambers received two documents that Mr Hennessy emailed to the Queensland Registry over the previous weekend. One of these documents, titled “Applicants’ submissions in support of application for directions / stay”, requested an adjournment of the matter for “approximately six weeks”. The other document was a bundle of exhibits.

6    It appears that the purpose for which the adjournment was sought was to allow Mr Hennessy to obtain further information under freedom of information laws. In any event, Mr Hennessy did not file an application or any affidavits in support of the adjournment sought.

7    On 17 June 2026, the matter came before me at the first case management hearing. Mr Hennessy appeared via telephone and made an oral application seeking the adjournment. The respondent, through counsel, attended in person and sought for the entirety of the proceeding to be dismissed on the basis that it was defective.

Disposal of the matter

8    Section 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) relevantly provides that:

31A Summary judgment

(1)     …

(2)     The Court may give judgment for one party against another in relation to the whole or any part of a proceeding if:

(a)     the first party is defending the proceeding or that part of the proceeding; and

(b)     the Court is satisfied that the other party has no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding or that part of the proceeding.

(3)     For the purposes of this section, a defence or a proceeding or part of a proceeding need not be:

(a)     hopeless; or

(b)     bound to fail;

for it to have no reasonable prospect of success.

(4)     This section does not limit any powers that the Court has apart from this section.

(5)     This section does not apply to criminal proceedings.

9    Rule 1.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (FCR) provides that:

1.32 Court may make any order it considers appropriate in the interests of justice

The Court may make any order that the Court considers appropriate in the interests of justice.

10    I am satisfied that the Notice of Appeal from a Tribunal lodged by Mr Hennessy is defective in at least two ways, and that, as a result of these defects, Mr Hennessy has no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting any part of the present proceeding.

Filing Location

11    First, the Notice of Appeal from a Tribunal was not filed in the correct registry of this Court. Rule 33.12 of the FCR, as amended by the Federal Court Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Rules 2026 (Cth), provides that:

33.12 Starting an appeal—filing and service of notice of appeal

(1)     A person who wants to appeal to the Court under the ART Act must file a notice of appeal, in accordance with Form 75.

…

(3)     The applicant must file the notice of appeal in the District Registry in the State or Territory in which the Tribunal heard the matter.

…

(emphasis added)

12    The decision of JXKS and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Practice and procedure) [2026] ARTA 555, which Mr Hennessy sought to appeal, was heard in Melbourne. Thus, by filing the present proceeding in the Queensland Registry of the Federal Court, Mr Hennessy did not comply with r 33.12 of the FCR.

13    This, in itself, may not have been fatal to the application. Notwithstanding the mandatory language used in r 33.12, the Court has power, pursuant to r 1.34 of the FCR, to dispense with compliance with that rule should it be appropriate to do so. However, taken in conjunction with the following defect in the application, I have formed the view that the proceeding should be dismissed.

Proper Applicant

14    Specifically, the Notice of Appeal from a Tribunal incorrectly identified Mr Hennessy as the applicant when the proper applicant should have been Mr Hennessy’s wife.

15    While the ART decision employed a pseudonym, the Tribunal member had referred to the applicant before the Tribunal with the feminine pronouns of “she” and “her”. Furthermore, at the first case management hearing Mr Hennessy accepted that the proceeding before the ART was brought in the name of his wife in the following exchange:

HER HONOUR: The other option is, Mr Hennessy, you and Mrs Hennessy go and get some legal advice and then lodge – perhaps someone like LawRight – and endeavour to file a valid – a non-defective application.

MR HENNESSY: Yes. Yes. Yes, your Honour. I’m happy to do that. I would just like to note, with the application, obviously, it was in my wife’s name. It was relating to the Family Tax Benefit payment which either of us would have applied to Services Australia for, but I was actually the authorised representative in the AIT [sic] matter and another matter relating to the ..... as well, which is why I kind of primarily put myself down as the applicant. Is there a possibility of putting it in both our names given the context of what the claim was for, being the – a Family Tax Benefit?

HER HONOUR: Ms Forsyth?

MS FORSYTH: The Secretary opposes the request. The decision is clearly in relation to FTB claims – Family Tax Benefit claims lodged by Mrs Hennessy.

HER HONOUR: Yes. So the answer – so it’s opposed by the Secretary. Ms Forsyth has just explained why it’s opposed by the Secretary. I agree. Your wife, Mrs Hennessy, appears to be the proper applicant.

(emphasis added)

16    Section 172 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) relevantly provides that:

172 Party may appeal

(1)    A party to a proceeding in the Tribunal may appeal to the Federal Court, on a question of law, from the decision of the Tribunal in the proceeding.

…

17    The concept of a “party to a proceeding” is relevantly defined in s 22 as:

22 Parties to proceeding for review

Parties to proceeding

(1)     Each of the following are parties to a proceeding for review by the Tribunal of a decision:

(a)     the applicant for the review;

(b)    the decision‑maker;

(c)     any other person, if:

(i)     the person applies to the Tribunal to become a party to the proceeding; and

(ii)     the Tribunal is satisfied that the person’s interests are affected by the decision; and

(iii)     the Tribunal considers it appropriate that the person become a party to the proceeding.

…

18    There is no evidence, either in the ART’s reasons or at the first case management hearing before me, that Mr Hennessy had ever applied to be a party to the ART proceeding under s 22(1)(c).

19    I am satisfied that Mr Hennessy was not a party to the ART proceeding that gave rise to the decision of JXKS and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Practice and procedure) [2026] ARTA 555. For that reason, he did not have standing to appeal to the Federal Court in respect of that decision.

Conclusion

20    Ultimately, the Notice of Appeal from a Tribunal lodged by Mr Hennessy has no reasonable prospect of success. It was not filed in the correct registry, and the named applicant, Mr Hennessy, did not have standing.

21    I do not propose to deal with Mr Hennessy’s application for adjournment in circumstances where the adjournment sought will not affect the prospect of success in the case.

22    The Notice of Appeal from a Tribunal is dismissed pursuant to s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). Costs will follow the event.

Associate:

Dated:    19 June 2026