Croker v Department of Family & Community Services [2000] FCA 269

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Croker v Department of Family & Community Services

[2000] FCA 269

CLAYTON ROBERT CROKER v DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES N 845 OF 1999 SACKVILLE J SYDNEY 2 MARCH 2000

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 845 OF 1999

BETWEEN: CLAYTON ROBERT CROKER

APPLICANT

AND: DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SACKVILLE J

DATE: 2 MARCH 2000

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR DECISION 1 A motion has been filed on behalf of the respondent in this matter seeking an order pursuant to Federal Court Rules, ("FCR") O 20 r 2(1)(a) that the proceedings be dismissed. Alternatively, the respondent seeks an order pursuant to FCR, O 11 r 16(a) that the statement of claim be struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Pleading 2 The applicant is unrepresented. He has pleaded his case in a statement of claim filed on 29 October 1999. The statement of claim was filed and served in purported compliance with a direction made by the Court that the case proceed on pleadings. 3 It is not altogether easy to follow the statement of claim. What follows is my understanding of the case the applicant intends to plead. 4 The statement of claim pleads that on 25 June 1997, or thereabouts, the applicant applied to the Department of Social Security ("the Department") for an advance payment of a Disability Support Pension of $500. It is alleged that the advance payment was made on that date and was repaid between 10 July 1997 and 25 December 1997. 5 The applicant says that on or about 25 June 1997, he was "involved in a discussion" regarding his eligibility for further advance payments of disability support pension. He alleges that he was given information by the Department that he would be eligible for an advance payment on 26 December 1997, or at an earlier date if the first advance were repaid prior to 26 December 1997. 6 It is then alleged that, between 10 July 1997 and 25 December 1997, the applicant had fortnightly deductions of $38.50 taken out of his Disability Support Pension. Although it is unclear, the applicant presumably intends to allege that this was the means by which the advance payment was repaid. The applicant says that during this period he entered into "a number of financial engagements" including pledges on personal property and loans from an associate of about $100. Again, although the language of the statement of claim is extremely difficult to follow, the applicant appears to allege that he had assumed that he would receive a further advance payment on or about 26 December 1997. 7 The applicant alleges that on 26 December 1997 he applied for a further advance payment of Disability Support Pension. It is then said that he received a letter from the Department on or about 30 December 1997, stating that he had an outstanding debt of $38.50 in respect of the previous advance payment. The applicant appears to allege that the letter advised that the remaining $38.50 would have to be repaid before a further advance could be granted. 8 The applicant next claims that the amount of $38.50 was repaid by him, by way of deduction from the next instalment of Disability Support Pension paid to him "[t]herefor [sic] releasing the plaintiff [sic] from the advance payment". 9 The applicant alleges that he again applied for an advance payment on 2 January 1998. It is then alleged that he received a reply from the Department on the same date, stating that the legislation had changed and that he was no longer eligible to receive an advance payment. 10 The applicant says that these actions caused him "financial difficulties". He applied to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, but his application was dismissed on the ground (so it is alleged) that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction. A subsequent application for review to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is also said to have been unsuccessful. 11 The application claims that the following questions of law are raised by the application: "(a) The does [sic] the DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES have jurisdiction to over see the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 Sec 9. (b) Is the DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICE liable for damages caused by a breach." 12 The orders sought in the application are as follows: "1) The DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES pay the sum of $140,000.00 in damages. 2) The DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES pay damages in equity, a) Explanatory [sic]; b) Pecuniary; c) Interest; d) Out of pocket expenses." 13 The statement of claim refers to the relief specified in the application and continues as follows: "1. During the time in which the plaintiff [sic] applied for the advance payment on 26th of December 1997, or thereabouts and to date the plaintiff has suffered a number of damages in that pecuniary damages had been affective [sic] with also loss of enjoyment of life and damages to the character and reputation of the plaintiff, and procrastination of studies. 2. The plaintiff also seek [sic] explanatory [sic] damages and costs associated with the four appeals that have been sought. In view of the offence [sic] committed by the Department of Social Security."