Collins v Royal Australian Air Force & Anor [2003] FCA 1163

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Collins v Royal Australian Air Force & Anor [2003] FCA 1163 MICHAEL COLLINS v ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE & REPATRIATION COMMISSION N 752 of 2003 MOORE J 22 OCTOBER 2003 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 752 OF 2003

BETWEEN: MICHAEL COLLINS

APPLICANT

AND: ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

FIRST RESPONDENT

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: MOORE J

DATE OF ORDER: 22 OCTOBER 2003

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed pursuant to Order 32 rule 2 of the Federal Court Rules. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs. 3. Order 1 take effect 14 days from today. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 752 OF 2003

BETWEEN: MICHAEL COLLINS

APPLICANT

AND: ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

FIRST RESPONDENT

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: MOORE J

DATE: 22 OCTOBER 2003

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (revised from transcript) 1 This is an application by Mr Collins for an extension of time in which to appeal against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the Tribunal") of 22 May 2003. The Tribunal's decision concerned whether Mr Collins had an entitlement as he claimed under the Veterans Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth). The Tribunal concluded he had no such entitlement and, in so doing, affirmed the decision it was reviewing. Thereafter, the proceedings were commenced in this Court. 2 Neither the application for an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal nor the draft notice of appeal disclose any intelligible ground of appeal. Indeed, the draft notice of appeal is simply a discursive account of various facts and matters that seem to be of concern to Mr Collins. They may, at the very best, peripherally bear upon the present proceedings. 3 When the matter was last before me for directions on 1 September 2003, the hearing was conducted by phone, at least as concerns Mr Collins. He appeared and the hearing date of today was set. I have been informed by Ms Nanson, solicitor appearing for the respondents, that she has been in telephone contact with Mr Collins. It is apparent from the conversations they have had that Mr Collins remains aware that the matter was listed for hearing today. In those discussions, it appears that Mr Collins indicated he was somewhat equivocal about whether or not he would attend today's hearing. Notwithstanding directions that he do so, he has not filed any written submissions in support of his application. 4 Mr Collins has not appeared this morning. The respondents applied for an order dismissing the application on the basis that the applicant, Mr Collins, has not appeared. I propose to grant that application. 5 I should record that I have read the reasons for decision of the Tribunal and it is not apparent to me that its decision is attended by any error that would provide a sound basis for any appeal against the decision under s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth). I propose to order that, first, the application be dismissed, secondly, that the applicant pay the respondents costs, and thirdly, that order take effect from 14 days from today. I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore.