Paschke v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2023] FCAFC 143

Paschke v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2023] FCAFC 143

The application was dismissed because the proposed appeal lacked sufficient merit: Mr Paschke did not have a sufficient personal claim or interest against each respondent to commence representative proceedings under Part IVA, his pension was not affected, his asserted privacy and distress claims did not supply a relevant cause of action, there was no error in refusing to permit him as a non-lawyer to conduct representative proceedings for group members, and the claim against the Ombudsman could not proceed because only Mr Paschke had complained to the Ombudsman and no specific lack of good faith was pleaded so s 33(1) of the Ombudsman Act 1976 (Cth) was engaged.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Application for an Extension of Time and for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders Dismissing Representative Proceedings Brought Under Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth). / Full Court Application Listed With the Hearing of the Appeal If Leave Were Granted.
Outcome
Application for an extension of time and for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Decision' 'part IVA Representative Proceedings' 'standing and Sufficient Interest' 'self Represented Representative Applicant' 'assessable Curtilage for Aged Pension' 'ombudsman Immunity' 'good Faith']
['administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights' 'representative Proceedings' 'social Security' 'ombudsman Law'] ['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Decision' 'part IVA Representative Proceedings' 'standing and Sufficient Interest' 'self Represented Representative Applicant' 'assessable Curtilage for Aged Pension' 'ombudsman Immunity' 'good Faith']

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 for an Extension of Time and for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders Dismissing Representative Proceedings Brought Under Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth). / Full Court Application Listed With the Hearing of the Appeal If Leave Were Granted.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the primary judge's orders dismissing the representative proceedings were interlocutory and therefore required leave to appeal." 'Whether an extension of time should be granted for the application for leave to appeal.' 'Whether Mr Paschke had sufficient interest to commence representative proceedings under ss 33C and 33D of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).' 'Whether a self-represented litigant who is not legally qualified should be permitted to conduct representative proceedings for group members.' 'Whether the claim against the Commonwealth Ombudsman was barred by s 33 of the Ombudsman Act 1976 (Cth) in the absence of a pleaded lack of good faith.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the proposed appeal lacked sufficient merit: Mr Paschke did not have a sufficient personal claim or interest against each respondent to commence representative proceedings under Part IVA, his pension was not affected, his asserted privacy and distress claims did not supply a relevant cause of action, there was no error in refusing to permit him as a non-lawyer to conduct representative proceedings for group members, and the claim against the Ombudsman could not proceed because only Mr Paschke had complained to the Ombudsman and no specific lack of good faith was pleaded so s 33(1) of the Ombudsman Act 1976 (Cth) was engaged.

Court Disposition

Application for an extension of time and for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's application for an extension of time and for leave to appeal is dismissed." "The applicant pay the respondents' costs of the application, to be fixed by way of an agreed lump sum or, in default of agreement, by way of a lump sum fixed by a Registrar."]