Croker v Department of Family & Community Services [2000] FCA 883

Croker v Department of Family & Community Services [2000] FCA 883

The amended statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action because reg 9 of the Financial Management and Accountability Regulations 1997 (Cth) did not create any private claim for damages arising from misleading information about social security entitlements, and any fiduciary duty case was inadequately pleaded and, on the apparent facts, unsustainable. The pleading also failed to allege material facts linking the alleged breach to any compensable loss, and s 1061A(4)(c) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) precluded an advance payment before 25 June 1998. As the applicant had already had two opportunities to plead and proposed no viable further basis for the claim, leave to...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Pleadings; Application Claiming Damages / Respondents' Motion to Dismiss Proceedings or Strike Out the Amended Statement of Claim After the Applicant Had Previously Been Given Leave to Replead
Outcome
Proceedings dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the motion filed on 26 May 2000 and of the proceedings, excluding costs of the motion filed on 11 February 2000.
Legal Topics
['strike Out of Pleadings' 'no Reasonable Cause of Action' 'leave to Replead' 'summary Dismissal' 'advance Payment of Disability Support Pension' 'financial Management and Accountability Regulations' 'fiduciary Duty' 'statutory Prohibition on Payment of Public Money']
['practice and Procedure' 'social Security' 'equity' 'public Finance'] ['strike Out of Pleadings' 'no Reasonable Cause of Action' 'leave to Replead' 'summary Dismissal' 'advance Payment of Disability Support Pension' 'financial Management and Accountability Regulations' 'fiduciary Duty' 'statutory Prohibition on Payment of Public Money']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Practice and Procedure; Pleadings; Application Claiming Damages / Respondents' Motion to Dismiss Proceedings or Strike Out the Amended Statement of Claim After the Applicant Had Previously Been Given Leave to Replead

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the amended statement of claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action under reg 9 of the Financial Management and Accountability Regulations 1997 (Cth).' 'Whether the applicant adequately pleaded a claim that the Commonwealth owed and breached a fiduciary duty by giving misleading information about future social security entitlements.' 'Whether any pleaded loss was causally connected to the alleged misleading information or breach of fiduciary duty.' 'Whether the applicant should be granted further leave to replead after two unsuccessful attempts.' 'Whether the proceedings should be dismissed and costs ordered.']

Ratio Decidendi

The amended statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action because reg 9 of the Financial Management and Accountability Regulations 1997 (Cth) did not create any private claim for damages arising from misleading information about social security entitlements, and any fiduciary duty case was inadequately pleaded and, on the apparent facts, unsustainable. The pleading also failed to allege material facts linking the alleged breach to any compensable loss, and s 1061A(4)(c) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) precluded an advance payment before 25 June 1998. As the applicant had already had two opportunities to plead and proposed no viable further basis for the claim, leave to...

Court Disposition

Proceedings dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the motion filed on 26 May 2000 and of the proceedings, excluding costs of the motion filed on 11 February 2000.

Orders

  • ['The proceedings be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the respondents' costs of the motion filed on 26 May 2000 and of the proceedings (other than the costs of the motion filed on 11 February 2000)."]