Coffey v Centrelink [2004] FCAFC 233

Coffey v Centrelink [2004] FCAFC 233

The Full Court found no error in Mansfield J's reasons. The appellant's material and submissions did no more than attempt to reargue issues of fact and law already determined against him in the 1998 action at first instance, on appeal, and after refusal of special leave. The material did not show any new evidence, misapprehension of fact or law, or other circumstance requiring reopening in the interests of justice. The appeal therefore had to be dismissed with costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 August 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia / Full Court Appeal From Summary Dismissal of the 2003 Action
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['summary Dismissal' 'reopening Proceedings' 'abuse of Process' 'malicious Prosecution' 'misfeasance in Public Office' 'recovery of Social Security Debt']
['civil Procedure' 'administrative Law' 'social Security'] ['summary Dismissal' 'reopening Proceedings' 'abuse of Process' 'malicious Prosecution' 'misfeasance in Public Office' 'recovery of Social Security Debt']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia / Full Court Appeal From Summary Dismissal of the 2003 Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mansfield J erred in summarily dismissing the 2003 action seeking to reinstate the 1998 action.' "Whether the appellant's material justified reopening the 1998 action under Order 35 rule 7 of the Federal Court Rules." 'Whether the appellant was merely seeking to reargue claims previously rejected at first instance, on appeal, and after refusal of special leave.' 'Whether claims including conspiracy, defamation, breach of privacy, negligence, abuse of process, restraint of trade, and expunging a police record disclosed any viable basis for relief.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Full Court found no error in Mansfield J's reasons. The appellant's material and submissions did no more than attempt to reargue issues of fact and law already determined against him in the 1998 action at first instance, on appeal, and after refusal of special leave. The material did not show any new evidence, misapprehension of fact or law, or other circumstance requiring reopening in the interests of justice. The appeal therefore had to be dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the respondents' costs in the proceedings."]