Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Zoia v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2008] FCA 988
ANGELO ZOIA v SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS WAD 227OF 2007
SIOPIS J
2 July 2008
PERTH IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY WAD 227 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED BY SENIOR MEMBER SWEIDAN
BETWEEN: ANGELO ZOIA
Applicant
AND: SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS
Respondent
JUDGE: SIOPIS J
DATE OF ORDER: 2 July 2008
WHERE MADE: PERTH
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The applicant is to file and serve any submissions he wishes to make regarding costs by 4.00pm on 16 July 2008. 3. The respondent is to file and serve any submissions regarding costs by 4.00pm on 23 July 2008. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY WAD 227 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED BY SENIOR MEMBER SWEIDAN
BETWEEN: ANGELO ZOIA
Applicant
AND: SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS
Respondent
JUDGE: SIOPIS J
DATE: 2 JULY 2008
PLACE: PERTH
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant has been unemployed for a very considerable period of time. 2 On 26 October 2006, a Centrelink officer decided to suspend the applicant's newstart allowance on the grounds that he did not attend an interview with his job network provider. 3 On 1 November 2006, a Centrelink officer decided to cancel the applicant's newstart allowance on the grounds that he had failed to lodge an application for payment form. 4 The applicant asked that an authorised review officer review both of these decisions. The authorised review officer upheld the decision of the Centrelink officer made on 26 October 2006. 5 In relation to the second decision, namely, that made on 1 November 2006, the authorised review officer found that the applicant had, contrary to the decision of the Centrelink officer, in fact lodged an application for payment form. However, the authorised review officer went on to find that the applicant had on 4 October 2006 failed to attend an interview with his job network member to renegotiate his activity agreement, and consequently from that date he ceased to be qualified for a newstart allowance. 6 By a letter dated 23 November 2006, the authorised review officer wrote to the applicant in the following terms: After carefully looking at the matters presented in your case,…I have decided to change the decision to cancel your Newstart Allowance as you did not lodge your Application for Payment form on 17 October, 2006. This is because you did lodge your Application for Payment form. However, I have also decided that you ceased to be qualified for Newstart Allowance as of 4 October, 2006. This is because you failed to attend appointments with your Job Network Member to renegotiate your Activity Agreement. 7 The letter also said that it attached a document entitled "Decision Statement". A copy of the letter and attached Decision Statement was included in the appeal papers as comprising the documents that were before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The heading of the Decision Statement relevantly states: Decision under review To cancel your Newstart Allowance as you did not lodge your Application for Payment form on 17 October, 2006 Date of decision 1 November, 2006 ARO's decision Varied Name of ARO Ian Presbury Date of ARO's decision 23 November, 2006
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