Parker v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 1915

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Parker v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 1915

AMELIA MARGARET PARKER v REPATRATION COMMISSION N1045 of 2001 MADGWICK J 12 DECEMBER 2001 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N1045 of 2001

BETWEEN: AMELIA MARGARET PARKER

APPLICANT

AND: REPATRIATION COMMISSION

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: MADGWICK J

DATE OF ORDER: 12 DECEMBER 2001

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. 2. The applicant to pay the respondent's costs.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N1045 of 2001

BETWEEN: AMELIA MARGARET PARKER

APPLICANT

AND: REPATRIATION COMMISSION

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: MADGWICK J

DATE: 12 DECEMBER 2001

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (revised from transcript) HIS HONOUR: 1 In this matter the applicant appeals on a question of law from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the Tribunal") that affirmed a decision of the respondent to refuse her claim for a widow's pension under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth)("the Act"). The respondent's decision had earlier been affirmed on review by the Veterans' Review Board and it was really a review of that decision as much as anything, that was undertaken by the Tribunal. The notice of appeal indicates that the question of law is: "Whether the Tribunal erred in law in finding that there was no evidence that the late veteran's smoking habit increased during or following service, in relation to the question of whether the veteran's death was war-caused within the terms of the [Act]." 2 The ground for appeal is that: "The Tribunal erred in law in finding that there was no evidence that the late veteran's smoking habit increased during or following service, in relation to the question of whether the veteran's death was war-caused within the terms of the [Act], such finding being so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have made the finding".