Pickering v Centrelink [2008] FCA 561

Pickering v Centrelink [2008] FCA 561

The application was dismissed because it disclosed no discernible cause of action or causal connection between unspecified conduct by Centrelink and the alleged mental illness or imprisonment; even if amended, any alleged breach of administrative or social security powers would not confer a private right to damages where review mechanisms existed; the application did not disclose a matter within the Federal Court's jurisdiction; and the claim was frivolous within O 20 r 5.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Application Against Centrelink Seeking Damages; Respondent's Motion for Summary Dismissal / Hearing of Notice of Motion Seeking Summary Dismissal Under S 31 A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth) and O 20 R 5 of the Federal Court Rules
Outcome
Application dismissed; applicant ordered to pay Centrelink's costs of the application and the motion.
Legal Topics
['summary Dismissal' 'no Reasonable Prospect of Success' 'no Cause of Action' 'private Right to Claim Damages' 'jurisdiction and Matter Arising Under Commonwealth Law' 'frivolous or Vexatious Proceedings' 'abuse of Process']
['practice and Procedure' 'administrative Law' 'federal Jurisdiction' 'social Security' 'torts'] ['summary Dismissal' 'no Reasonable Prospect of Success' 'no Cause of Action' 'private Right to Claim Damages' 'jurisdiction and Matter Arising Under Commonwealth Law' 'frivolous or Vexatious Proceedings' 'abuse of Process']

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

Application Against Centrelink Seeking Damages; Respondent's Motion for Summary Dismissal / Hearing of Notice of Motion Seeking Summary Dismissal Under S 31 A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth) and O 20 R 5 of the Federal Court Rules

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the application disclosed a cause of action against Centrelink.' 'Whether any exercise of administrative or statutory power by Centrelink could confer a private right to claim damages where statutory review mechanisms existed.' 'Whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction to hear the application.' 'Whether the proceeding was frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process under O 20 r 5 of the Federal Court Rules.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because it disclosed no discernible cause of action or causal connection between unspecified conduct by Centrelink and the alleged mental illness or imprisonment; even if amended, any alleged breach of administrative or social security powers would not confer a private right to damages where review mechanisms existed; the application did not disclose a matter within the Federal Court's jurisdiction; and the claim was frivolous within O 20 r 5.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; applicant ordered to pay Centrelink's costs of the application and the motion.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' "The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs of the application and the motion today, to be taxed if not agreed."]