Negri v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2016] FCA 879

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Negri v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2016] FCA 879 Appeal from: Negri v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2015] AATA 179

File number: VID 151 of 2015

Judge: BROMBERG J

Date of judgment: 5 August 2016

Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – consideration of what are the reasons for decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal where oral reasons are given at time of decision and are later given in writing pursuant to s 43(2A) Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) – consideration of degree of permissible departure in written reasons from oral reasons – held that Tribunal may provide more-elaborate exposition of same reasoning as orally given, and may explain that reasoning differently, but cannot substantially divert from that reasoning – whether Tribunal's written reasons in this proceeding departed to impermissible degree from oral reasons –Tribunal's written reasons did not so depart SOCIAL SECURITY – applicant for disability support pension – Tribunal had held that applicant warranted 10-point impairment rating of Table 1 of relevant determination – whether Tribunal erred in failing to make findings in terms of the examples given in Table 1 – consideration of nature of assessment of impairment ratings for the purposes of tables in the determination – Tribunal did not err ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – whether Tribunal acted at behest of Job Capacity Assessor and thereby failed to act independently – Tribunal did not so act – whether Tribunal's decision legally unreasonable because predicated on plainly-false factual finding or on disregard of plain fact – factual finding not plainly false; no disregard of plain fact – whether Tribunal erred by failing to deal with clearly-articulated submission upon which strong reliance was put – submission that applicant had been diagnosed with depression, relying upon reference, in evidence submitted by respondent, to such a diagnosis made by psychiatrist – no reference by Tribunal to evidence of diagnosis by psychiatrist – Tribunal did err in failing to deal with submission