Scott & Anor v Pedler & Ors [2005] HCATrans 1002 (14 December 2005)

--

Scott & Anor v Pedler & Ors [2005] HCATrans 1002 (14 December 2005)

Last Updated: 23 December 2005

[2005] HCATrans 1002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M83 of 2004

B e t w e e n -

RALPH SCOTT AND SOPHIE SCOTT

Applicants

and

TONI LEE-ANNE PEDLER (OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY)

First Respondent

JULIE A. WILLIAMS (OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY)

Second Respondent

ROBERT A. CHRYSTAL (AUTHORISED REVIEW OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY)

Third Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

HAYNE J
CRENNAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 14 DECEMBER 2005, AT 9.37 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

HAYNE J: The second applicant, Mrs Scott, made application in 1993 for a disability support pension. That application was refused and on internal review the refusal affirmed. The decision not to grant that pension was affirmed by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal in January 1996. In September 1996 an officer of the relevant Department decided that Mrs Scott was entitled to the pension and, on 6 November 1996, the Department informed her that the pension would be paid in future and arrears would be paid for the period commencing on 28 January 1993. In the meantime, the second applicant’s application for a special benefit had initially been refused, the refusal affirmed, but subsequently granted.

The applicants now seek special leave to appeal against orders of the Full Court of the Federal Court dismissing their appeal against orders of Gray ACJ made on 27 June 2003. By those orders Gray ACJ dismissed the application which the applicants had made for declarations, injunctions, and damages, including both aggravated and exemplary damages, as a result of decisions made or not made in respect of the applications for pension and benefits mentioned earlier.

There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Full Court. The application for special leave should be dismissed.

Pursuant to rule 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs. I publish that disposition.

AT 9.39 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED