Bornecrantz v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2019] FCA 1733

Bornecrantz v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2019] FCA 1733

The appeal was summarily dismissed because the applicant failed to challenge the first (procedural) ground for the AAT's dismissal—failure to comply with an AAT direction—and, even on the merits, had no reasonable prospect of success as her entitlement to an age pension was precluded by not being resident in Australia at the time of claim, as required by statute. Citizenship alone did not confer entitlement.

Parties
Applicant: Elizabeth Francis Bornecrantz; First Respondent: Secretary, Department of Social Services; Second Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal on a Question of Law / Application for Summary Dismissal of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal summarily dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Summary Dismissal, Entitlement to Age Pension, Australian Citizenship and Residency Requirements, Jurisdictional Error, Constitutional Validity of Legislation
Administrative Law Social Security Law Constitutional Law Summary Dismissal Entitlement to Age Pension Australian Citizenship and Residency Requirements Jurisdictional Error Constitutional Validity of Legislation

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elizabeth Francis Bornecrantz

Applicant

Secretary, Department of Social Services

First Respondent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal on a Question of Law / Application for Summary Dismissal of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant's appeal should be summarily dismissed for no reasonable prospects of success
  2. 2 Whether Australian citizenship alone entitles claim to the age pension irrespective of residency
  3. 3 Whether the legislative requirement of Australian residency is constitutionally valid

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was summarily dismissed because the applicant failed to challenge the first (procedural) ground for the AAT's dismissal—failure to comply with an AAT direction—and, even on the merits, had no reasonable prospect of success as her entitlement to an age pension was precluded by not being resident in Australia at the time of claim, as required by statute. Citizenship alone did not confer entitlement.

Court Disposition

Appeal summarily dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The first respondent's interlocutory application dated 12 September 2019 is upheld.
  • The appeal is summarily dismissed under s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and r 26.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).