Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Edwards v MTC Australia Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1649 Hearing dates: 9 October 2017 Decision date: 09 October 2017 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: McCallum J Decision: Proceedings dismissed generally; plaintiff ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – application for summary dismissal of proceedings – misconceived attempt to enforce a charity to perform the functions of the Employment Secretary – no reasonable cause of action disclosed Legislation Cited: Social Security Act 1991 (Cth), s 28 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Melanie Edwards (plaintiff) MTC Australia Ltd (defendant) Representation: Counsel: Plaintiff self-represented M Skelly (solicitor for the defendant) Solicitors: Craddock Murray Solicitors (defendant) File Number(s): 2017/265058 Publication restriction: None Judgment 1. HER HONOUR: These are proceedings commenced by summons filed 31 August 2017 by Ms Melanie Edwards, who appears for herself, against MTC Australia Ltd. By notice of motion filed 22 September 2017, MTC seeks to have the proceedings dismissed pursuant to r 13.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). This judgment determines that application. 2. Rule 13.4 provides, among other things, that proceedings may be dismissed if it appears to the Court that in relation to the proceedings generally no reasonable cause of action is disclosed. The application brought by MTC also sought to invoke other limbs of that rule, but it is enough to consider that question. 3. Ms Edwards in her summons seeks two orders, as follows: 1. That an order be made for MTC to comply with legislation: Social Security Act s 28. 2. That MTC Australia consults and implements the programs put forward by the plaintiff in order to align MTC Australia's compliance with the above and with its own mission statement and welfare of its clients. 1. Some explanation is required. According to the affidavit sworn in support of the defendant's application, MTC is a public company limited by guarantee registered as a charity and public benevolent institution. It provides services to assist people in gaining employment skills and training experience through a range of training courses, employment services, youth programs and community initiatives. One such program is one provided by MTC pursuant to a contract with CoAct, a separate entity which was awarded a government contract to provide "Job Active" services on behalf of the Commonwealth Department of Employment. CoAct entered into a subcontract with MTC to provide those services. The "Job Active" program includes the Work for the Dole program developed by the Commonwealth Department of Employment. 2. Ms Edwards is a client of MTC in her capacity as a jobseeker. As best I have been able to understand her submissions this morning, her grievance with MTC is that it fails to provide the programs she contends it is obliged to provide under its contractual arrangements with CoAct. Ms Edwards claims that she is not the only person to have such a grievance and purports to represent the grievances of a significant number of other job-seeking clients of MTC. 3. The first prayer for relief in the summons seeks, as best I understand it, to compel MTC to perform the functions of the Employment Secretary under the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth). The section referred to in the summons, s 28 of the Social Security Act, confers authority on the Employment Secretary to declare in writing particular programs of work to be approved programs of work for income support payment. The balance of the section imposes certain constraints on that authority. 4. The summons, it seems to me, misconceives the position of MTC in the delivery of such programs, purporting to identify MTC with the Employment Secretary. It is plain enough from the clear terms of s 28 that it imposes no power, authority, function, duty or obligation on MTC. That aspect of the summons is accordingly legally misconceived. 5. The second prayer for relief seeks an order that MTC Australia consult with the plaintiff in respect of programs proposed by her and implement those programs. As already noted, the contractual arrangements pursuant to which MTC delivers the programs approved by the Employment Secretary under s 28 comes as a result of the contract between CoAct and the Commonwealth Department of Employment and the master subcontract agreement entered into by MTC with CoAct to provide those services. 6. It is plain enough that Ms Edwards has no standing in any contractual dispute concerning the enforcement of those contractual arrangements. 7. Ms Edwards stated from the Bar table that each job-seeking client of MTC has a contract with MTC. However, the enforcement of any obligation under any such contract forms no part of the proceedings as framed. It is clear enough from the way in which Ms Edward's grievance has been described that she seeks to achieve something very different from simply the enforcement of a bare contractual relationship between her and MTC by these proceedings. 8. I am satisfied that the proceedings are legally misconceived and that no reasonable cause of action is disclosed by the summons or the affidavit filed by Ms Edwards in support of the summons. 9. Accordingly, I consider it appropriate to grant the relief sought in the notice of motion. 10. The order is that the proceedings be dismissed generally. 11. I order the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 06 December 2017