Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Elliott v Repatriation Commission [2002] FCA 26 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – review of decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("Tribunal") – veteran's entitlements – whether Tribunal erred in finding no reasonable hypothesis
Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) ss 9, 13, 120, 120A
Deledio v Repatriation Commission (1997) 47 ALD 261 referred to Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82 followed Byrnes v Repatriation Commission (1993) 177 CLR 564 referred to Repatriation Commission v Stares (1996) 66 FCR 594 referred to Repatriation Commission v Bey (1997) 79 FCR 364 referred to LANCE GORDON ELLIOTT v REPATRIATION COMMISSION N 922 of 2001
STONE J 23 JANUARY 2002 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 922 OF 2001
BETWEEN: LANCE GORDON ELLIOTT
APPLICANT
AND: REPATRIATION COMMISSION
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: STONE J
DATE OF ORDER: 23 JANUARY 2002
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. the application be dismissed;
2. the applicant pay the respondent's costs of this proceeding. 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 N 922 OF 2001
BETWEEN: LANCE GORDON ELLIOTT
APPLICANT
AND: REPATRIATION COMMISSION
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: STONE J
DATE: 23 JANUARY 2002
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Background 1 The applicant served in the Australian Army during World War II from 24 October 1941 to 22 March 1946. In a decision given on 8 April 1999, the respondent, Repatriation Commission ("Commission"), refused the applicant's claim that his medical condition, determined by a delegate of the Commission to be peripheral neuropathy and osteoarthrosis in both knees, was war-caused within the meaning of s 9 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) ("Act"). The Veterans' Review Board affirmed this decision on 3 December 1999. This decision was, in turn, affirmed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("Tribunal") on 14 May 2001. Before the Tribunal the applicant did not challenge the decision in respect of peripheral neuropathy but only in respect of his osteoarthrosis. The applicant has applied under s 44(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) for a review of the Tribunal's decision.
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