Federal Court of Australia
| | JUDGMENT No. enol wh te. CATCHWORDS
- person serving prison sentence transferred to hospital for mental illness - whether detained in connection with conviction for an offence - whether entitled to a pension
a et 1975 (Cth) s 44
c 1974 (Qld) s 43 Corrective Services Act 1988 (Qld) Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) s 1160 Qur Town FM Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal [1987] 77 ALR 577 ommi rannuation v ham [1989] 86 ALR 239 woo ni s =
anor [1990] 94 ALR 220 [1980] 47 FLR 80 poneott y Comussioner for Superannuation {1991] 23 ALD 257
RETAR AR' BER B
G 190 of 1993
EINFELD J
SYDNEY (heard in Brisbane)
22 NOV 1994
FEDERAL COURT OF
AUSTRALIA PRINCIPAL REGISTRY
11 NOVEMBER 1994
pan ~ =,
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. G 190 of 1993 GENERAL DIVISION ) Between: ANTHONY ___ STUART ___BLUNN, SECRETARY, ___DEPARTMENT ___OF SOCTAL SECURITY Applicant
And: ROBERT WILLIAM BULSEY First Respondent
And: MISS__S.A. _FORGIE, __DEPUTY
Second Respondents
The Court orders that:
1. the application be dismissed
2. the applicant pay the respondents' costs.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders are dealt with in the accordance with Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
EINFELD J SYDNEY (heard in Brisbane) 11 NOVEMBER 1994
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY No. G 190 of 1993 )
Between: ANTHONY __ STUART __ BLUNN, SECRETARY, ___ DEPARTMENT _ OF SOCTAL SECURITY Applicant And: ROBERT WILLIAM BULSEY
First Respondent
Second Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
INFEL SYDNEY 11 NOVEMBER 1994 (heard in Brisbane)
On 9 October 1992 the first respondent Robert William Bulsey applied for a sickness benefit. It was refused on 26 November 1992, and the refusal was upheld by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) on 25 March 1993. An application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) on 4 May 1993 resulted in a decision by the second respondents in favour of Mr Bulsey on 27 October 1993. This application seeks a review of that decision under section 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (the AAT Act). Preempting that the orders made by the Tribunal might not be considered a "decision" capable of review under section 44, alternative but similar relief has been
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate