Wang & Anor v Secretary, Department of Employment & Workplace Relations [2007] HCATrans 573 (4 October 2007)

Last Updated: 11 October 2007

[2007] HCATrans 573

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M28 of 2007

B e t w e e n -

NAN WANG

First Applicant

QIAN XIAO

Second Applicant

and

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

KIRBY J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 4 OCTOBER 2007, AT 9.03 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia
KIRBY J: This is the second application by the applicants, who are husband and wife, for special leave to appeal to this Court. The earlier application, which related to the dismissal of the applicants from their employment, was refused by the Court, constituted by Gummow and Heydon JJ. See Wang & Anor v Full Bench, Australian Industrial Relations Commission & Ors [2006] HCATrans 549 (5 October 2006). The present application arises out of a claim by the applicants that Centrelink, a federal authority, wrongly disposed of the applicants' claims for social security benefits, made in consequence of the termination of their employment.

The Social Security Appeals Tribunal in May 2005 affirmed the decision of the Centrelink officer of March 2004 to impose an income maintenance period on the applicants' claim for a "Newstart" allowance. The applicants brought applications against the Secretary of the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations before the Federal Court, complaining of wrongful conduct by Centrelink in connection with their claims for social security benefits. The Secretary thereupon initiated motions claiming the dismissal of the applicants' applications. Those applications came on for hearing before Heerey J. By a decision of 14 July 2006, his Honour concluded that there was no jurisdiction in the Federal Court to deal with the various claims made by the applicants. He therefore ordered that each of their applications should be dismissed with costs.

The applicants appealed to the Full Court of the Federal Court. That court, on 22 February 2007, declined to decide whether the decision of Heerey J had been interlocutory (requiring leave) or final. On either basis, it unanimously dismissed the appeal and again ordered that the applicants pay the Secretary's costs of the appeal. Now the applicants have sought special leave to appeal to this Court.

In their written case, the applicants have not meaningfully addressed the finding of the Federal Court that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain their applications. We see no reason to doubt the correctness of that decision. There are no prospects of success, were special leave to be granted by this Court. The applicants have not advanced any arguments of law that would warrant this Court's becoming involved in their dispute.

The application for special leave must therefore be refused.

Because the applicants are unrepresented, their application has been dealt with in accordance with r 41.10 of the High Court Rules. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 of the High Court Rules, we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave.

I publish that disposition signed by Justice Heydon and myself.

AT 9.05 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED