In Precious Family Day Care Pty Ltd v Secretary, Department of Education, the Federal Court heard an appeal against the decision of the Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to affirm the decision of the Department to refuse childcare benefit approval to the appellant (in regard to the AAT case, see my previous post). The appeal to the Court was on a question of law under section 44(1), Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) from the AAT decision. The key issue in dispute before the AAT was whether the applicant and its sole director, Ms Muna Abdi, as a person with management or control of the applicant, were fit and proper persons to be involved in the administration of the Child Care Subsidy (CCS) and the Additional Child Care Subsidy (ACCS). The AAT concluded that the applicant and Ms Abdi were not fit and proper persons. The AAT decision was challenged before the Federal Court on three grounds:
Whether the AAT denied the applicant procedural fairness and/or constructively failed to exercise jurisdiction by making an adverse finding that Ms Abdi’s role at Golden Heart [another FDC service] should be considered as a moderate factor for refusing [the applicant’s] approval for CCS as she was an integral staff member at the service during its period of significant non-compliance. In relation to this ground the Court held the AAT's findings "...were open on the 'natural evaluation' of the material before the Tribunal. No further invitation to comment was therefore required. To require otherwise would be to require the Tribunal to invite comment on its evaluative thought processes by way of a running commentary. It follows in my view that there was no denial of procedural fairness." (para. 40).
Whether the AAT failed to have regard to and make findings upon the “matters” prescribed by s 194E(1), Administration Act in determining whether the applicant (and any person with management or control of the applicant) was a fit and proper person. The Court was of the view that the AAT had regard to each of the matters prescribed in s 194E and held that the requirement to consider a matter is distinct from the requirement to expressly address each matter in written reasons.
Whether the Tribunal failed to perform and/or misunderstood its statutory task in making findings by reference to factors for or against the applicant being granted provider approval rather than having regard to the specific matters in s 194E(1) for the purposes of the criteria in s 194C, Administration Act. In relation to this ground, the Court held that it did not consider that the Tribunal misunderstood its task.
The Federal Court therefore dismissed the applicant's appeal.