Rana v Military Rehabilitation & Compensation Commission [2005] FCAFC 85

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Rana v Military Rehabilitation & Compensation Commission [2005] FCAFC 85

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – judicial review - no question of principle – appeal dismissed Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ss 33(1)(c), 43(2B), 44.

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth)

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 27 RANJIT SHAMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA v MILITARY REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION COMMISSION SAD 8 OF 2005 MARSHALL, MANSFIELD AND STONE JJ ADELAIDE 18 MAY 2005

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY SAD 8 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE COURT

BETWEEN: RANJIT SHAMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA

APPELLANT

AND: MILITARY REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION COMMISSION

RESPONDENT

JUDGES: MARSHALL, MANSFIELD AND STONE JJ

DATE OF ORDER: 18 MAY 2005

WHERE MADE: ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY SAD 8 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE COURT

BETWEEN: RANJIT SHAMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA

APPELLANT

AND: MILITARY REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION COMMISSION

RESPONDENT

JUDGES: MARSHALL, MANSFIELD AND STONE JJ

DATE: 18 MAY 2005

PLACE: ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT 1 This is an appeal from a judgment of Finn J given on 12 January 2005 in Rana v Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission [2005] FCA 6. Finn J dismissed Mr Rana's appeal under s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ("the AAT Act") from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the AAT") of 6 May 2004. The AAT decided that Mr Rana was not entitled to compensation pursuant to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) in respect of the conditions of paranoid psychosis and post traumatic stress disorder. The application before the AAT was made on 9 October 2001 ("the 2001 claim"). 2 Mr Rana represented himself on the appeal, as he did before Finn J. His notice of appeal contains 15 "grounds", none of which identifies any intelligible basis for setting aside the orders below. 3 The application before Finn J under s 44 of the AAT Act did not involve his Honour in any fact finding exercise. The appeal could only be brought in relation to questions of law. Section 44(1) of the AAT Act provides: "A party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may appeal to the Federal Court of Australia, on a question of law, from any decision of the Tribunal in that proceeding." 4 The grounds of appeal which complain about Finn J's "exclusion of evidence", finding of "wrong facts", "wrongly determin(ing) facts", "not considering fresh evidence" and "factual error" are entirely misconceived. 5 Likewise, it was not the role of Finn J in an appeal under s 44 of the AAT Act to disturb findings of fact made by the AAT, as distinct from identifying legal error. Consequently the ground of appeal of Mr Rana which alleges that there was sufficient material before the AAT to support an aspect of his case is similarly misconceived. 6 The search for a real issue of any substance for this Full Court to consider is, unfortunately for Mr Rana, a fruitless expedition.