FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Spires v Administrative Appeals Tribunal [2002] FCA 447 DARREN SPIRES v ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL D 26 OF 2001 O'LOUGHLIN J 6 FEBRUARY 2002 DARWIN IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY D 26 OF 2001 ON APPEAL FROM THE GENERAL DIVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED BY A SENIOR MEMBER BETWEEN: DARREN SPIRES APPLICANT AND: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL TRIBUNAL RESPONDENT JUDGE: O'LOUGHLIN J DATE OF ORDER: 6 FEBRUARY 2002 WHERE MADE: ADELAIDE THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The Applicant pay the Respondent's costs which costs are to be taxed in default of agreement. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY D 26 OF 2001 ON APPEAL FROM THE GENERAL DIVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED BY A SENIOR MEMBER BETWEEN: DARREN SPIRES APPLICANT AND: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL TRIBUNAL RESPONDENT JUDGE: O'LOUGHLIN J DATE: 6 FEBRUARY 2002 PLACE: ADELAIDE EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The proceedings that are before the Court today are in the nature of an appeal by Mr Darren Spires against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). As I intimated to Mr Spires, the role of the Federal Court in such a matter is limited to reviewing questions of law. In other words, if the Federal Court is of the opinion that, in the course of its deliberations or in its reasons, the Tribunal has committed an error of law, it is within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court to intervene and, in appropriate cases, to identify the error and to send the matter back to the Tribunal for re‑consideration. 2 If on the other hand, the Tribunal makes a mistake of fact or exercises a discretionary power and the Federal court is of the opinion that the discretion was exercised in a manner contrary to the way in which the judge may have exercised that discretion, he or she is not entitled to interfere if the discretionary power was one which was open to the Tribunal. In like manner, if the Federal Court is of the opinion that a mistake of fact was made, the Federal Court cannot intervene unless the mistake of fact was of such a nature that it is transformed into an error or law. 3 I make these statements in the hope that Mr Spires will thereby appreciate that my powers are very limited. In particular, I do not have the power to make a general review of his case – to start afresh and to examine it right from the beginning. 4 The circumstances of this case are in one sense very simple but in another way very complex. The simple version is to this effect: that in June 2000, Mr Spires was in receipt of a disability support pension which entitled him to receive a pensioner education supplement. He applied for and was granted such a supplement to assist him in his studies to become a chef. The pensioner education supplement was paid throughout the first semester of 2000, which ended on 23 June of that year. The second semester started shortly thereafter and Mr Spires continued to receive the supplement. However, he did not enrol for the second semester nor did he attend the classes for the second semester. Expressed in those simple terms, Mr Spires was not entitled to the pensioner education supplement, because the qualifying conditions were that he enrol in the second semester and attend classes in the second semester. That is the simple version of the facts. 5 The very complicated version of the facts are those summarised by Mr Spires during the course of these proceedings, where he explained the many difficulties that he has faced over the years, the many troubles that he has had with officers of the Department and his difficulties in attending classes because of his need to attend upon the Department for interviews. Tragically, all of those complicating circumstances do not give me the opportunity – they deprive me of the opportunity – of investigating the merits of his case. I can only look at that simplified version which I have identified, namely: for a period of 23 June to November 2000, Mr Spires, at a time when he was not enrolled in a qualifying course and when he was not attending lectures in such a course, received supplemental payments by way of the pensioner education supplement to which he was not entitled. 6 The Department and its officers have reviewed his position, as has the Social Security Appeal Tribunal and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. It was within the power of those officers and those Tribunals to waive the requirement that he repay the money which represented the supplemental payments in that second semester: $671.82. Unfortunately, they chose not to exercise their discretionary power to grant him that waiver and my jurisdiction does not permit me to review that aspect of the case. 7 It is for that reason that I must come to the conclusion that the appeal must be dismissed, for the reasons that I have given. I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice O'Loughlin. Associate: Dated: 6 February 2002 The Applicant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondent: Mr J Lee Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 6 February 2002 Date of Judgment: 6 February 2002