Balbir Singh v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2024] FCA 1517

Federal Court of Australia Balbir Singh v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2024] FCA 1517 Review of: Decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal dated 27 February 2024

File number(s):

Judgment of: O'CALLAGHAN J

Date of judgment: 20 December 2024

Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – application for judicial review under section 44(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) – where application wholly devoid of merit – appeal dismissed with costs

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ss 33(1)(c), 42B(1), 44(1) Legislation: Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) s 1061JIA Social Security (Coronavirus Economic Response—2020 Measures No. 2) Determination 2020 (Cth)

Cases cited: Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337

Division: General Division

Registry: Victoria

National Practice Area:

Number of paragraphs: 27

Date of hearing: 10 December 2024

Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appeared by telephone

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr B Dube of Sparke Helmore Lawyers

Solicitors for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore Lawyers

ORDERS VID 197 of 2024

BETWEEN: JASBIR BALBIR SINGH Applicant AND: SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES Respondent

order made by: O'CALLAGHAN J DATE OF ORDER: 20 December 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed, with costs. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT O'CALLAGHAN J

Introduction 1. The applicant seeks to appeal a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) in proceeding 2022/9279 made on 27 February 2024 by which it dismissed an application for review under s 42B(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (the AAT Act) because the application had no reasonable prospects of success. 2. The applicant now applies for judicial review of that decision under s 44(1) of the AAT Act. 3. The applicant says she was entitled to a "National Health Emergency Crisis Payment" (NHE Crisis Payment) in respect of a 14-day period in which she was in a period of self-isolation during the Coronavirus pandemic. The amount of that entitlement, and thus what is at stake, is no greater than $500. 4. The application required the respondent to instruct lawyers, who were then obliged to file and serve an appeal book that comprised over 600 pages and written submissions in response to a plethora of irrelevant material filed by the applicant. At the hearing, Mr B Dube of Sparke Helmore Lawyers appeared for the respondent. The applicant appeared, at her request, by telephone. 5. Given the Court's obligation to facilitate the just resolution of disputes as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible, I will make my reasons for dismissing the application brief. The application is hopeless.