Background
Daniel Hennessy, a self-represented litigant, filed a Notice of Appeal from a Tribunal in the Queensland Registry of the Federal Court on 11 May 2026, seeking to challenge the Administrative Review Tribunal’s decision in JXKS and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Practice and procedure) [2026] ARTA 555. That underlying ART proceeding had been brought in the name of his wife and concerned a Family Tax Benefit claim. Mr Hennessy explained that he had acted as his wife’s authorised representative before the Tribunal and believed he was entitled to appeal, in part because either spouse could have applied for the Family Tax Benefit. The Secretary of the Department of Social Services opposed the appeal and sought its dismissal as defective.
At a first case management hearing on 17 June 2026 before Justice Collier, Mr Hennessy appeared by telephone and sought an adjournment of approximately six weeks to gather further information under freedom of information laws. He had not filed a formal application or supporting affidavits for that adjournment. The respondent’s counsel attended in person and pressed for immediate dismissal of the entire proceeding on the basis that it was fundamentally defective in two respects: it had been filed in the wrong registry, and the named applicant had no standing.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Collier dismissed the Notice of Appeal summarily under s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), finding that the proceeding had no reasonable prospect of success for two independent reasons. First, the notice was filed in the Queensland Registry, whereas r 33.12 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (as amended by the Federal Court Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Rules 2026) requires an appeal from the Administrative Review Tribunal to be filed in the District Registry of the State or Territory in which the Tribunal heard the matter — here, Victoria, because the underlying ART decision had been heard in Melbourne. While the Court could have dispensed with this requirement under r 1.34, Justice Collier declined to do so given the second, more fundamental defect.
Second, and decisively, Mr Hennessy lacked standing. Under s 172(1) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), only a party to the Tribunal proceeding may appeal to the Federal Court on a question of law. Section 22 of that Act defines parties to include the applicant for review, the decision-maker, and any person admitted as a party by the Tribunal on application. The ART decision had been brought in Mrs Hennessy’s name; there was no evidence that Mr Hennessy had ever applied to become a party under s 22(1)(c), and at the hearing he acknowledged the proceeding before the ART was in his wife’s name. Accordingly, he was not a party to the ART proceeding and had no right to appeal its outcome. The application for adjournment was refused on the basis that more time would not cure the fatal defects.
Key Takeaways
- Only a person who was a formal party to an Administrative Review Tribunal proceeding — as applicant, decision-maker, or Tribunal-admitted participant — has standing under s 172(1) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 to appeal to the Federal Court; acting as an authorised representative does not confer party status.
- A Federal Court appeal from an ART decision must be filed in the registry for the State or Territory where the Tribunal heard the matter (r 33.12, Federal Court Rules 2011), not wherever the appellant happens to be located.
- Both defects — wrong registry and lack of standing — independently supported summary dismissal under s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976; an adjournment will not be granted where it cannot cure the defects that make success impossible.
- Costs followed the event against the self-represented applicant.
Why It Matters
This decision provides a clear practical warning for family members who act as authorised representatives in social security Tribunal proceedings: merely representing a spouse or relative before the ART does not make that person a party, and it is the named party — not the representative — who must bring any subsequent Federal Court appeal. Litigants who wish to preserve appeal rights for a family member’s matter should ensure they are formally joined as a party under s 22(1)(c) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 before the Tribunal proceeding concludes.
The case also reinforces that procedural rules governing where appeals must be filed are jurisdictional in nature and will not readily be waived, particularly where other independent grounds for dismissal already exist. For self-represented litigants navigating the new Administrative Review Tribunal framework, the decision underscores the importance of seeking legal advice — as Justice Collier herself suggested — before lodging Federal Court proceedings.