Kowalski and Repatriation Commission (Compensation) [2021] AATA 2124 (26 February 2021)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2020/8288
Re:Kazimir Kowalski
APPLICANT
AndRepatriation Commission
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal:Member A Durkin
Date:26 February 2021
Place:Adelaide
The application for leave to file a further application for review, under section 42B(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), is refused.
.....................[Sgnd]...................................................
Member A Durkin
Catchwords
JURISDICTION - applicant may not make subsequent application for review of a decision without leave of Tribunal under s 42B(2) of the AAT Act - application for review would have no utility – leave to apply refused
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (Cth)Administrative Tribunals Act 1975 (Cth)
Cases
Kowalski and Repatriation Commission [2014] AATA 141
REASONS FOR DECISION
Member A Durkin
On 14 March 2014 the Tribunal made a direction (in the matter of Kowalski and Repatriation Commission [2014] AATA 141) that, pursuant to s 42B(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), the applicant may not make a subsequent application for review pursuant to the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (Cth) or the Administrative Tribunals Act 1975 (Cth) without leave of this Tribunal.
The applicant sought, on 15 December 2020, to make an application for review of a decision by the respondent to raise a debt for asserted overpayment of disability pension in the amount of $1,824.93.
On 15 December 2020, the same date as the present application, the Department of Veterans Affairs had waived any outstanding debt and the applicant was so advised.
During a telephone hearing with the applicant on 22 January 2021, in pursuit of the present application, the applicant acknowledged that, in consequence, there was no outstanding debt.
Even if the applicant were to be granted leave to file the present application, it would have no utility.
Accordingly, the Tribunal declines to grant leave to the applicant to file and pursue the application for review filed on 15 December 2020.
FORMAL DECISION
The Tribunal refuses to grant leave to the applicant to file a further application for review pursuant to s 42B(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth).
I certify that the preceding 7 (seven) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member A Durkin.
…………[Sgnd]………………………
Administrative Assistant Legal
Dated: 26 February 2021
Date of hearing: 22 January 2021 Advocate for the Applicant: Mr Kazimir Kowalski Advocate for the Respondent: Ms Peta Heffernan
- AGLC
- Kowalski and Repatriation Commission (Compensation) [2021] AATA 2124
- Case
- [2021] AATA 2124
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was the interpretation and application of section 42B(2) of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth). This provision dictates that an applicant may not make a subsequent application for review of a decision unless they have obtained the leave of the Tribunal. The Tribunal was required to determine whether granting leave in this instance would serve any practical purpose or utility, given the circumstances of the case.
The Tribunal reasoned that granting leave to file and pursue the application for review would be futile. Consequently, the Tribunal declined to grant Mr. Kowalski the necessary leave. The formal decision of the Tribunal was to refuse to grant leave to the applicant to file a further application for review pursuant to section 42B(2) of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth).
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.