Mohinder Singh and Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Case [2013] AATA 897

[2013] AATA 897

Division GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION

File Number(s)

2013/5507

Re

Mohinder Singh

APPLICANT

And

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal

Deputy President J W Constance
Date 20 November 2013
Date of written reasons 17 December 2013
Place Melbourne

1.       The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the application for review lodged on 28 October 2013.

2.      The application is dismissed.

...........................[sgd].........................................

Deputy President J W Constance

CATCHWORDS

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - jurisdiction - frivolous and vexatious application – rights of appeal exhausted – Tribunal has no power to review its own decisions – no jurisdiction - application dismissed.

LEGISLATION

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 44

REASONS FOR DECISION

Deputy President J W Constance

17 December 2013

INTRODUCTION

  1. On 20 November 2013 I decided to refuse an application by Mr Singh to set aside a decision of the Tribunal made on 3 July 2006.

  2. At the request of Mr Singh I now provide the reasons for my decision in writing.

    BACKGROUND

  3. In April 2006 Mr Singh filed in the Tribunal an application (No. V 2006/314) to review a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal.

  4. On 3 July 2006, following a hearing of the application , the Tribunal made the following decision and direction:

    (1)The application issued on 20 April 2006 to review a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal made on 22 March 2006 is frivolous and vexatious and shall be dismissed.

    (2)The applicant must not without leave of the Tribunal make any application with respect to recovery of sickness allowance, disability support pension or wife pension paid between 28 October 1991 and 26 October 1999.

  5. The application before me was filed on 28 October 2013.  It sought a review of the Tribunal’s decision of 3 July 2006.  Mr Singh stated the reasons for the application as follows:

    The judgement of the AAT to determine the Applicant’s application No.  V314/2006 on 3 July 2006 under section 42B of the AAT Act 1975, was obtained by the fraud on the part of the Respondent.

    CONSIDERATION

  6. At the hearing of this application I asked Mr Singh to confirm the relief which he sought from the Tribunal.  Mr Singh requested that I set aside the decision of the Tribunal made 3 July 2006 which dismissed his application for a review of the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal.

  7. In 2007 Mr Singh appealed to the Federal Court to review the decision of 3 July 2006.  The Court varied the decision of the Tribunal by adding the words “to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal” after the words “the applicant must not without leave of the Tribunal make any application” and otherwise dismissed the appeal.  An appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court was dismissed.

  8. Mr Singh then applied to the High Court of Australia for special leave to appeal the judgement of the Federal Court.  On 15 May 2008 special leave was refused.  The Court said, in part:

    The applicant’s draft notice of appeal fails to raise any ground with respect to the decision of the Full Court.  He does not identify a special leave question but returns to the alleged failure by the SSAT to review the decision of Centrelink refusing to review the decision of 4 November 1999.  It is clear that the matters put forward by the applicant have been previously decided, and it was open to the AAT to dismiss the application summarily.  The applicant has insufficient prospects of success in this Court to warrant a grant of special leave to appeal.

  9. The power to set aside a decision of this Tribunal is conferred on the Federal Court of Australia by section 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth). This section gives an applicant in the Tribunal a right of appeal on a question of law from any decision of the Tribunal in the proceeding lodged by him or her. Clearly Mr Singh has exhausted his rights of appeal. The Tribunal does not have the power to review its own decisions.

  10. I also asked Mr Singh if he wished the application before me to be treated as an application to vacate the direction contained in paragraph 2 of the decision so that he was not required to apply to the Tribunal to seek leave to make an application of the type specified.  Mr Singh declined to call any evidence to support such an application.

  11. I also asked Mr Singh if he wished to have me consider the application as an application for leave to make a further application.  He did not wish to do so.

    CONCLUSION

  12. The application was dismissed as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review the decision made by it on 3 July 2006 by which it dismissed the application by Mr Singh to review the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal made 20 April 2006.

I certify that the preceding 12 (twelve) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President J W Constance

........................[sgd]............................................

Associate

Date of written reasons   17 December 2013

Date of hearing

20 November 2013
Applicant In person
Details
AGLC
Mohinder Singh and Administrative Appeals Tribunal [2013] AATA 897
Case
[2013] AATA 897
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Mohinder Singh sought a review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to dismiss his application for review of a decision by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT). The AAT had also imposed a prohibition on Mr Singh making certain applications without leave of the Tribunal. Mr Singh's application to the AAT was dismissed as the Tribunal considered it to be frivolous and vexatious. The primary legal issue was whether the AAT had the jurisdiction to review its own decision dismissing Mr Singh's application and prohibiting him from making certain further applications. The court considered that the AAT's power to review its own decisions was limited by statute and had been exercised by Mr Singh through the avenues of appeal available to him under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth). The court found that Mr Singh had exhausted his rights of appeal and that the AAT did not have jurisdiction to review its own decision.

The court found that Mr Singh had unsuccessfully pursued all available avenues of appeal against the AAT’s decision, including an appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court and an application to the High Court for special leave to appeal. The court held that once a party has exhausted all available avenues of appeal, the original decision of the AAT stands and is not subject to further review by the AAT itself. The court also noted that Mr Singh had declined to pursue alternative remedies, such as an application to vacate the direction contained in the AAT's decision or an application for leave to make a further application. As a result, the court dismissed Mr Singh's application for review of the AAT's decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

At the request of Mr Singh I now provide the reasons for my decision in writing.BACKGROUND In April 2006 Mr Singh filed in the Tribunal an application (No. V 2006/314) to review a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. On 3 July 2006, following a hearing of the application , the Tribunal made the following decision and direction:(1)The application issued on 20 April 2006 to review a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal made on 22 March 2006 is frivolous and vexatious and shall be dismissed.(2)The applicant must not without leave of the Tribunal make any application with respect to recovery of sickness allowance, disability support pension or wife pension paid between 28 October 1991 and 26 October 1999. The application before me was filed on 28 October 2013. It sought a review of the Tribunal’s decision of 3 July 2006. Mr Singh stated the reasons for the application as follows:The judgement of the AAT to determine the Applicant’s application No. V314/2006 on 3 July 2006 under section 42B of the AAT Act 1975, was obtained by the fraud on the part of the Respondent.CONSIDERATION At the hearing of this application I asked Mr Singh to confirm the relief which he sought from the Tribunal. Mr Singh requested that I set aside the decision of the Tribunal made 3 July 2006 which dismissed his application for a review of the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. In 2007 Mr Singh appealed to the Federal Court to review the decision of 3 July 2006. The Court varied the decision of the Tribunal by adding the words “to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal” after the words “the applicant must not without leave of the Tribunal make any application” and otherwise dismissed the appeal. An appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court was dismissed. Mr Singh then applied to the High Court of Australia for special leave to appeal the judgement of the Federal Court. On 15 May 2008 special leave was refused. The Court said, in part:The applicant’s draft notice of appeal fails to raise any ground with respect to the decision of the Full Court. He does not identify a special leave question but returns to the alleged failure by the SSAT to review the decision of Centrelink refusing to review the decision of 4 November 1999. It is clear that the matters put forward by the applicant have been previously decided, and it was open to the AAT to dismiss the application summarily. The applicant has insufficient prospects of success in this Court to warrant a grant of special leave to appeal. The power to set aside a decision of this Tribunal is conferred on the Federal Court of Australia by section 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth). This section gives an applicant in the Tribunal a right of appeal on a question of law from any decision of the Tribunal in the proceeding lodged by him or her. Clearly Mr Singh has exhausted his rights of appeal. The Tribunal does not have the power to review its own decisions. I also asked Mr Singh if he wished the application before me to be treated as an application to vacate the direction contained in paragraph 2 of the decision so that he was not required to apply to the Tribunal to seek leave to make an application of the type specified. Mr Singh declined to call any evidence to support such an application.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

I also asked Mr Singh if he wished to have me consider the application as an application for leave to make a further application. He did not wish to do so.CONCLUSION The application was dismissed as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review the decision made by it on 3 July 2006 by which it dismissed the application by Mr Singh to review the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal made 20 April 2006.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

The application before me was filed on 28 October 2013. It sought a review of the Tribunal’s decision of 3 July 2006. Mr Singh stated the reasons for the application as follows:The judgement of the AAT to determine the Applicant’s application No. V314/2006 on 3 July 2006 under section 42B of the AAT Act 1975, was obtained by the fraud on the part of the Respondent.CONSIDERATION At the hearing of this application I asked Mr Singh to confirm the relief which he sought from the Tribunal. Mr Singh requested that I set aside the decision of the Tribunal made 3 July 2006 which dismissed his application for a review of the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. In 2007 Mr Singh appealed to the Federal Court to review the decision of 3 July 2006. The Court varied the decision of the Tribunal by adding the words “to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal” after the words “the applicant must not without leave of the Tribunal make any application” and otherwise dismissed the appeal. An appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court was dismissed. Mr Singh then applied to the High Court of Australia for special leave to appeal the judgement of the Federal Court. On 15 May 2008 special leave was refused. The Court said, in part:The applicant’s draft notice of appeal fails to raise any ground with respect to the decision of the Full Court. He does not identify a special leave question but returns to the alleged failure by the SSAT to review the decision of Centrelink refusing to review the decision of 4 November 1999. It is clear that the matters put forward by the applicant have been previously decided, and it was open to the AAT to dismiss the application summarily. The applicant has insufficient prospects of success in this Court to warrant a grant of special leave to appeal. The power to set aside a decision of this Tribunal is conferred on the Federal Court of Australia by section 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth). This section gives an applicant in the Tribunal a right of appeal on a question of law from any decision of the Tribunal in the proceeding lodged by him or her. Clearly Mr Singh has exhausted his rights of appeal. The Tribunal does not have the power to review its own decisions. I also asked Mr Singh if he wished the application before me to be treated as an application to vacate the direction contained in paragraph 2 of the decision so that he was not required to apply to the Tribunal to seek leave to make an application of the type specified. Mr Singh declined to call any evidence to support such an application. I also asked Mr Singh if he wished to have me consider the application as an application for leave to make a further application. He did not wish to do so.CONCLUSION The application was dismissed as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review the decision made by it on 3 July 2006 by which it dismissed the application by Mr Singh to review the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal made 20 April 2006.