Case: Jess v Scott (1986) 12 FCR 187
Outcome: considered
In Dranichnikov v Centrelink (supra) the Full Court, in considering a similar statutory provision to s 1237AAB said (at [65] and [66]): '65. The decision maker clearly also determined that the circumstances were such that they were not exceptional or unusual so that waiver could not be made as a matter of discretion under s 101. That equates "special circumstances", as that expression is used in the Administration Act with either exceptional circumstances or unusual circumstances. The origin of the test apparently adopted by the Secretary appears to be the decision of the first instance Judge in Beadle v Directory-General of Social Security (1985) 60 ALR 225. That was a decision under previous legislation, the history of which is referred to by French J in Secretary of Department of Social Security v Hales (1998) 82 FCR 154. The Full Court in Beadle comprising Bowen CJ, Fisher and Lockhart JJ, however, was of the view that it was not possible to lay down precise rules as to what constituted special circumstances under the then s 102(1)(a) of the Social Security Act 1947 (Cth). Their Honours point out that the question whether there were special circumstances was one for the decision maker (in that case the Director-General) bearing in mind the purpose for which the power was given. The reference to the first instance decision from which the words "unusual, uncommon or exceptional" come was not actually affirmed by the Full Court. 66. To some extent the question whether there were special circumstances must depend on how it came about that the error occurred. Again that is not a matter to which the decision maker apparently averted. Other cases which have considered analogous words such as "special reasons" has tended to conclude, albeit in different contexts, that what is required will be circumstances which distinguish the case in consideration from the usual case. There will be a requirement that the circumstances are such that takes the case out of the ordinary: Jess v Scott (1986) 12 FCR 187 and the cases in various contexts in the decision which Lockhart, Shepherd and Burchett JJ discuss.' 32 In Ryde v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services (supra) Branson J considered the provisions of s 1237AAD and in particular whether the Tribunal in that case had erred in concluding that special circumstances meant circumstances which were 'unusual, uncommon or exceptional'. Her Honour referred to the first passage from the reasons for judgment of the Full Court in Beadle set out in [28] above. She also referred to the following passage in Jess v Scott (1986) 12 FCR 187 (at 195): 'What is needed to justify an extension of time is indicated in r 15(2) by the words "for special reasons". It is that there be shown a special reason why the appeal should be permitted to proceed, though filed after the expiry of twenty-one days. In that context, the expression "special reasons" is intended to distinguish the case from the usual course according to which the time is twenty-one days. But it may be so distinguished (not necessarily will, for the rule gives a discretion) wherever the Court sees a ground which does justify departure from the general rule in the particular case. Such a ground is a special reason because it takes the case out of the ordinary. We do not think the use of the expression "for special reasons" implies something narrower than this.' Although those observations were made in the context of the expression 'for special reasons' in the rules of Court, her Honour considered they were of assistance in the interpretation of the expression 'special circumstances'. Her Honour then said (at [25] and [26]): In my view, the Tribunal probably overstated the significance of the requirement in s 1237AAD(b) for " special circumstances ". The Full Court in Beadle did not endorse the view expressed by the Tribunal in Re Beadle and Director-General of Social Security (1984) 6 ALD 1 at 3 that circumstances are special only if they are " unusual, uncommon or exceptional" . However, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's circumstances " do not differ from those of many income support recipients" . In the context in which the Tribunal reached this conclusion, it is to be understood as having made a judgment that neither hardship nor unfairness made it desirable to waive all or part of the applicant's debt because the applicant's circumstances were common-place rather than special. While, as French J pointed out in Hales , the evident purpose of s 1237AAD is to enable a flexible response to the wide range of circumstances which could give rise to hardship or unfairness, the statutory requirement for " special circumstances " discloses an intention to proscribe waiver in ordinary cases. The hardship or unfairness to which French J referred must be understood to be hardship or unfairness sufficient to justify departure from the general rule in the particular case.'