Zoia v Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 20 May 2009 this application under s 44(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (the AAT Act) was listed for hearing. 2 Mr Zoia appeared in person. At an earlier directions hearing, leave was given to Mr Zoia to amend the name of the respondent. Additionally, attempts were made to provide pro bono legal assistance for Mr Zoia. It was not possible to obtain such assistance. Neither has the amendment been made to correct the name of the respondent. That can be attended to at the next hearing. There is no objection to the amendment. 3 Rather than proceeding with his appeal, Mr Zoia contended that there was a fatal defect in his own notice of appeal as the notice of appeal makes reference to an appeal from the 'ATT' rather than the 'AAT'. The notice of appeal had nevertheless been accepted for filing by the District Registry. Mr Zoia described the acceptance of the filing of his notice of appeal as a 'miscarriage of justice'. His submission appeared to be that by virtue of the reference to the 'ATT' rather than the 'AAT' or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, there was a fatal error which rendered his appeal a nullity. He submitted that counsel for the respondent was therefore not entitled to appear. Doing the best I can, I take Mr Zoia's submission to be a motion to preclude the respondent from appearing by counsel, or at all, to oppose Mr Zoia's application for relief under s 44 of the AAT Act. Mr Zoia argued that because there was no valid notice of appeal, the Australian Government Solicitor had no right to appear on an invalid appeal. To that the respondent indicated that it had been served with the notice of appeal and it filed an appearance in response to the notice of appeal. The respondent had not noticed the typographical error (and it is doubtful whether anyone else had). It was perfectly clear which decision Mr Zoia was seeking to be reviewed. 4 It was made clear to Mr Zoia that the appeal was before the Court and that any minor typographical error of that nature could be amended so as to permit the appeal to proceed. The respondent also made clear that any amendment of that nature would not be opposed. The respondent wished to proceed with the substantive hearing. 5 Mr Zoia, however, did not wish to make such an amendment and opposed the amendment being made by the Court. 6 Although the 'appeal' was listed for hearing, Mr Zoia did not wish to and did not address any of the grounds in his notice of appeal but rather chose to address the procedural point. Nevertheless, I set out below the Notice of Appeal, the orders sought and the grounds in support of the notice of appeal verbatim below as I do not consider that it is in the interests of justice for the hearing of this appeal to be delayed any longer: 1. TAKE NOTICE that the applicant appeals from the decision of constituted by Ms G Ettinger given on 4 September 2008 at Perth whereby the Tribunal decided affirms the decision of the SSAT dated 23 November 2007 2. THE QUESTIONS OF LAW raised on the appeal are 1. The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. 2. The High Court Judgment - Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead (1909) 8 CLR 330. 3. Failed Justice. 4. Failed Natural Justice. 5. Failed Magna Carta, any charter guaranteeing liberty, any fundamental constitution or law guaranteeing rights. 6. Failed Liberty, freedom to do as one please: power of free choice: privileges, rights, etc. 7. "CATCHWORDS", "Applicant refused to sign new Agreement", where is Peter Langley affidavit saying that. My Unemployment Benefits was cancel on Peter Langley information. I said to Peter, could you make the date after the hearing. 8. Set the decision aside and substitute a new decision, that is despot justice, and also make them judge and jury. 9. Set the decision aside, cancel, and substitute a new decision, that new decision can not be cancel. 10. ARO, Brenda Parker can not correct a deception. Centrelink was trying to collect a debt from me. 11. Constitution 64. can not be delegated. 12. This month at Max Employment, I was told, a Lawyer can get it but I can't. About Peter Langley information or notes. 3. ORDERS SOUGHT 1. My Unemployment Benefits to be fully restored plus compensation or ex gratia. 2. Federal Court Rules - Pro Bono Publico. 3. The Hon Court to summon Peter Langley to give his information. 4. Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations to be changed to Minister, for Centrelink, under Constitution 64. 4. GROUNDS: 1. The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. 2. The High Court Judgment - Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead (1909) 8 CLR 330. 3. Magna Carta 4. Peter Langley information and notes. 5. Justice and Natural Justice.