0. 22 "UDGMENT N IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION QLD G3 of 1988 —~ ON APPEAL FROM THE GENERAL DIVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL BETWEEN: PAUL GRAHAM FORD Applicant AND: DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY Respondent MINUTES OF ORDER JUDGE MAKING ORDER: PINCUS J. DATE OF ORDER: 30 MAY 1988 WHERE MADE: BRISBANE THE COURT ORDERS THAT: NOTE: 1. the appeal be struck out. Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION QLD G3 of 1988 —~—~ ON APPEAL FROM THE GENERAL DIVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL BETWEEN: PAUL GRAHAM FORD Applicant AND: DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY Respondent PINCUS J. 30 MAY 1988 EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT In this matter, a notice of appeal was filed on 6 May 1988. It set out the questions of law to be raised on the appeal as follows: "The Administrative Tribunal never followed the rules of natural justice; failed to take into account relevant facts or considerations; took into account irrelevant matters; showed untenable conclusions and reached a decision not supported by any evidence." There is then reference to authority, and the questions of law go on: "also Social Security did the statement completely different." At the directions hearing the respondent took the objection that the notice of appeal did not disclose any question of law, and I, agreeing with that, determined to give the appellant another opportunity to file a notice of appeal setting out the question of law which would found the Court's jurisdiction. The notice of appeal which was then filed contained the following passage: "The Questions of Law raised on the appeal are: (1) Social Security did two different statements (2) Social Security said that I have a long history of inventing stories when the only trouble that I had was in 1977 when I was charged of imposition (3) Social Security states that I was -" something - "under the name of -" and various names are then mentioned -— "when Social Security knew me only as -" and he gives another name - "and Paul Ford. (4) Social Security stated that I never told them when my parents passed away and I have a certificate (5) The Social Security ask the question about access at US Base and they have a photocopy of my pass." The questions of law, so called, set out there were supplemented by a statement from the Bar table, which I direct to be recorded, to the effect that a factual error was made and is the basis of the appeal. The notice of appeal also contains other statements which, although it is not absolutely clear from the format of them, may be intended to be questions of law, and I will read them out in addition. It says: "(1) Social Security was concerned about my child school and I have a certificate from the school (2) Social Security is concerned about bank overdraft and I have a bank statement (3) The Administrative Appeal fribunal never followed the rules of natural justice failed to take into account relevant facts or consideration took into account irrelevant matters showed untenable conclusions § and reached a decision not supported by any evidence (4) The appeal is normally conducted on the evidence adduced at the trial but the Court may draw its own inferences of fact and may receive further evidence (5) Administrative Appeal Tribunal took his decision on the ground of a false statement of Social Security." It is undoubtedly difficult for a person who is unassisted by lawyers to draw up a notice of appeal in these matters, but, ultimately, the point is that if an appelllant is unable to identify any question of law, the Court has no jurisdiction. I am, having read the two notices of appeal and listened to Mr Ford's explanation of the point he wishes to raise, satisfied that there is no question of law in the case. It is not always appreciated by persons in Mr Ford's position that this Court has not unlimited jurisdiction on appeal from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Its jurisdiction is confined to questions of law. It appears to me clear from what Mr Ford has said that his principal purpose is to reagitate a factual question or questions which were not, in his view, correctly decided by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The appeal will therefore be struck out. _ i certify that this and the = preceding panes are a truz copy of the reasons for judgrrent herein of His Honour Mr. Justice Pincus A Suni Dated 30 May '988 Associate