Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Celentano v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2005] FCA 1302
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review – stay of decisions in question pending hearing granted Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), s 15(1)
DONATO CELENTANO v SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES, EFFIE KOULOURIS AND IAN HOOD
NSD 774 OF 2005
GYLES J
13 SEPTEMBER 2005
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 774 OF 2005
BETWEEN: DONATO CELENTANO
APPLICANT
AND: SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
FIRST RESPONDENT
EFFIE KOULOURIS
SECOND RESPONDENT
IAN HOOD
THIRD RESPONDENT
JUDGE: GYLES J
DATE OF ORDER: 13 SEPTEMBER 2005
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. Pursuant to s 15(1) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) the decisions of the delegates of the first respondent dated 13 and 23 September 2004 to cancel the applicant's age pension be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.
2. Costs be reserved.
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 NSD 774 OF 2005
BETWEEN: DONATO CELENTANO
APPLICANT
AND: SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
FIRST RESPONDENT
EFFIE KOULOURIS
SECOND RESPONDENT
IAN HOOD
THIRD RESPONDENT
JUDGE: GYLES J
DATE: 13 SEPTEMBER 2005
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is a motion pursuant to s 15(1) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (the Act) that the decisions of the delegates of the first respondent dated 13 and 23 September 2004 to cancel the applicant's age pension be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. 2 I am satisfied that there is an arguable case for relief pursuant to the Act. There is jurisdiction to grant a stay. The competing considerations have been discussed in the course of argument. In my opinion, in the present case the balance lies in maintaining the pension payments pending the disposal of the proceeding. It is relevant, I think, to take into account hardship, although I do appreciate the strength of the argument put by the first respondent that, effectively, the order entrenches what it says are payments which should not be being made and which would need to be recovered. I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Gyles.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate