Etri, Abdulla v Director General of Social Security [1984] FCA 234

CATCHWORDS

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Administrative Appeals Tribunal - Social Security - claim for invalid pension - whether Tribunal reached

conclusion as to extent of present disability by reference to matters not the subject of evidence - whether Tribunal ought to have considered an alternative case of incapacity caused by the

possibility of recurrence of a previous injury.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 38.43, 44

ABDULLAH ETRI V THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF SOCIAL SECURITY G.168 OF 1984

WILCOX J

15 AUGUST 1984 SYDNEY

IN _ THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No. G.168 of 1984

wwe ww

GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN : ABDULLAH ETRI Applicant AND: THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF SOCIAL SECURITY Respondent ORDERS CORAM: WILCOX J DATE: 15 AUGUST 1984 PLACE: SYDNEY

1. Appeal dismissed.

IN HE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) )

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. G.168 of 1984 )

GENERAL DIVISION )

BETWEEN : ABDULLAH ETRI Applicant

AND: THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF SOCIAL SECURITY

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

CORAM: WILCOX J DATE: 15 AUGUST 1984 PLACE: SYDNEY

This is an appeal, pursuant to 3.44 of the

Administrative Appeais Tribunal Act 1975, against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirming a decision to

refuse to the applicant an invalid pension. The right of appeal

to this Court is limited to an appeal on a question of law.

Section 43(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act requires the Tribunal to give reasons either orally or in writing

for its decision. By s.43(2B), where the Tribunal gives in

2.

writing the reasons for its decision, those reasons are to include its findings on material questions of fact anda reference to the evidence or other material on which those

findings were based.

The Tribunal, in this case constituted by the Hon Sir William Prentice (Senior Member), gave written reasons for its Gecision. These reasons set out carefully and at some length the relevant evidence, including particularly the medical evidence relating to the present physical and psychiatric condition of the applicant. The Tribunal found itself "unable to conclude that Mr Etri suffers any significant physical or mental impairment of his ability to work" and therefore dismissed his application for