Casey, George v The Repatriation Commission [1995] FCA 847

CATCHWORDS ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Procedural Fairness - whether Administrative Appeals Tribunal erred in admitting Repatriation Medical Authority statement of principles into evidence - whether Tribunal applied the correct standard of proof.

Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth): ss9, 44(1) 120(4), 120B(3), 196B(2) Veterans' Affairs (1994-5 Budget Measures) Legislation Amendment Act 1994 (Cth): s196A(1) Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth): ss33, 44(1) PQ v Australian Red Cross Society [1992] 1 VR 19; referred to. Tobacco Institute of Australia Ltd v Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations Inc (1992) 38 FCR 1; referred to. Fletcher v Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 19 FCR 442; applied. Opitz v Repatriation Commission (1991) 29 FCR 50; applied. GEORGE CASEY v THE REPATRIATION COMMISSION No NG 455 of 1995 CORAM: HILL J PLACE: SYDNEY DATED: 25 OCTOBER 1995

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No NG455 of 1995 ) GENERAL DIVISION )

ON APPEAL FROM THE VETERAN'S DIVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL TRIBUNAL BETWEEN: GEORGE CASEY Applicant AND: THE REPATRIATION COMMISSION Respondent

CORAM: HILL J PLACE: SYDNEY DATED: 25 OCTOBER 1995

MINUTES OF ORDER THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Application dismissed. 2. Applicant to pay the respondent's costs. 3. Order 2 is stayed for 7 days pending any submission which the parties may seek to make in writing in that time as to the question of costs. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No NG455 of 1995 ) GENERAL DIVISION )

ON APPEAL FROM THE VETERAN'S DIVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL TRIBUNAL BETWEEN: GEORGE CASEY Applicant AND: THE REPATRIATION COMMISSION Respondent