Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Bull v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 1832 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – VETERANS' AFFAIRS – veterans' entitlements – appeal from decision of primary judge on application for review of decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal on claim by widow for pension – whether Tribunal misapplied test of whether a reasonable hypothesis connecting death to war service was raised on material before it – what is required or meant by a reasonable hypothesis – hypothesis must be pointed to – nature of Tribunal's function at hypothesis stage – where Tribunal held reasonable hypothesis not raised on material – where primary judge held no error of law by Tribunal in deciding that question of fact – no error in primary judge holding Tribunal's conclusion open to it – appeal dismissed.
WORDS AND PHRASES – "reasonable"; "hypothesis"; "reasonable hypothesis" Veterans Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) s 120, s 120A Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 44 East v Repatriation Commission (1987) 16 FCR 517 applied Repatriation Commission v Keeley (2000) 98 FCR 108 referred to Repatriation Commission v Gorton (2001) 33 AAR 370; [2001] FCA 1194 referred to Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82 referred to and not followed in part Repatriation Commission v O'Brien (1985) 155 CLR 422 referred to National Mutual v Campbell (2000) 99 FCR 562 referred to Webb v Repatriation Commission (1988) 19 FCR 139 referred to Repatriation Commission v Whetton (1991) 31 FCR 513 referred to Bell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 26 ALD 545 referred to Repatriation Commission v Bey (1997) 79 FCR 364 referred to Gleeson v Repatriation Commission (1994) 34 ALD 505 referred to Repatriation Commission v Owens (1996) 70 ALJR 904 referred to R v Connell; Ex parte The Hetton Bellbird Collieries Ltd (1994) 69 CLR 407 referred to Bankstown Municipal Council v Fripp (1916) 26 CLR 385 referred to Foley v Padley (1984) 154 CLR 349 referred to Buck v Bavone (1976) 135 CLR 110 referred to Corporation of the City of Enfield v Development Assistance Commission (2000) 199 CLR 135 referred to Boucaut Bay Co (In Liq) v The Commonwealth (1927) 40 CLR 98 referred to FCT v Brian Hatch Timber Co (Sales) Pty Ltd (1972) 128 CLR 28 referred to FCT v Bayly (1952) 86 CLR 506 referred to Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 referred to Australian Heritage Commission v Mount Isa Mines (1997) 187 CLR 297 referred to Minister for Immigration v Eshetu (1999) 197 CLR 611 referred to Owens v Repatriation Commission (1994) 35 ALD 278 referred to Owens v Repatriation Commission (1995) 59 FCR 559 referred to Steed v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1981) 37 ALR 620 referred to Bisley Investment Corp v ABT (1982) 40 ALR 233 referred to FCT v Caneiro (1988) 15 ALD 368 referred to Joan Bull v Repatriation Commission No N1099 of 2001 MOORE, EMMETT and ALLSOP JJ 21 DECEMER 2001 SYDNEY
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