Jin v Centrelink [2011] FCA 337

Jin v Centrelink [2011] FCA 337

Although the Tribunal erred in finding that Mr Jin applied to extend his portability period before leaving Australia, that error was immaterial because there was no relevant event under Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) s 1218C(1) occurring while he was in China that caused him to be unable to return to Australia. The proposed appeal also identified no error of law, so the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain it. As the appeal had no prospects of success, there was no utility in setting aside the dismissal order and reinstating it.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a Decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Concerning Extension of the Portability Period for Disability Support Pension / Notice of Motion to Set Aside Dismissal for Non Attendance and Reinstate the Appeal
Outcome
Notice of Motion dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['disability Support Pension' 'portability Period' 'extension of Portability Period' 'appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'error of Law' 'non Attendance' 'reinstatement of Appeal']
['social Security' 'administrative Law'] ['disability Support Pension' 'portability Period' 'extension of Portability Period' 'appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'error of Law' 'non Attendance' 'reinstatement of Appeal']

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

Appeal From a Decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Concerning Extension of the Portability Period for Disability Support Pension / Notice of Motion to Set Aside Dismissal for Non Attendance and Reinstate the Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court should set aside the entered order dismissing the appeal for the applicant's non-attendance and reinstate the appeal." "Whether the proposed appeal identified an error of law in the Tribunal's decision." "Whether the Tribunal's factual error about when Mr Jin applied for an extension was material to the outcome." "Whether any relevant event under Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) s 1218C(1) occurred or began during Mr Jin's absence from Australia and caused him to be unable to return."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Tribunal erred in finding that Mr Jin applied to extend his portability period before leaving Australia, that error was immaterial because there was no relevant event under Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) s 1218C(1) occurring while he was in China that caused him to be unable to return to Australia. The proposed appeal also identified no error of law, so the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain it. As the appeal had no prospects of success, there was no utility in setting aside the dismissal order and reinstating it.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The Notice of Motion filed on 25 November 2010 is dismissed.' "The applicant to pay the respondent's costs, including reserved costs, if any."]