Rahman v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCA 1013

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Rahman v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCA 1013 MOHAMMAD TABIBAR RAHMAN v SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS AND SECRETARY, CENTRELINK AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES NSD 2336 OF 2006

MOORE J

5 july 2007

SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2336 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN: MOHAMMAD TABIBAR RAHMAN

Applicant

AND: SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS

First Respondent

SECRETARY, CENTRELINK AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

Second Respondent

JUDGE: MOORE J DATE OF ORDER: 5 july 2007

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The second respondent be removed as a party to the proceedings. 2. The application of 29 November 2006 be dismissed. 3. The notice of motion of 6 December 2006 be dismissed. 4. The applicant pay the first respondent's costs. 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 2336 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN: MOHAMMAD TABIBAR RAHMAN

Applicant

AND: SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS

First Respondent

SECRETARY, CENTRELINK AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

Second Respondent

JUDGE: MOORE J

DATE: 5 JULY 2007

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 In February 2006, Mr Rahman's parenting payment was cancelled by Centrelink because his assets had been assessed as exceeding the assets value limit. That decision was affirmed by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal ("SSAT") and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("AAT"). On 29 November 2006, Mr Rahman filed an application, by way of a notice of appeal, in this Court seeking to challenge the AAT's decision. By notice of motion filed 8 January 2007, the Secretary of the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations seeks orders that the notice of appeal be struck out or dismissed as incompetent and that the entity named as the second respondent to the notice of appeal be removed as a party. 2 The first respondent has informed the Court that the entity described as the second respondent to the notice of appeal, "Secretary, Centrelink Agency, Department of Human Services", does not exist. The Secretary of the Department of Human Services and the Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink have filed appearances on the basis that the appellant may have intended to refer to either or both of these persons, although they have not been formally joined as parties.