Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Hendy v Repatriation Commission [2002] FCA 602
veterans affairs – application for review of decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the Tribunal") – applicant suffered from a number of war-caused and non war-caused diseases and illnesses – applicant ceased employment – whether in assessing applicant's eligibility for a Special Rate pension Tribunal erred in not looking at why applicant ceased last employment – whether evidence before Tribunal that applicant was seeking employment – whether evidence before Tribunal that applicant not able to do remunerative work of the type he had previously been engaged in – failure to give proper, genuine and realistic consideration to issue may be an error of law – need for Tribunal to explain reasoning process.
words & phrases – "remunerative work that the veteran was undertaking" Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth), ss 15, 24(1)(c), 24(2)(b) Flentjar v Repatriation Commission (1997) 48 ALD 1, cited Starcevich v Repatriation Commission (1987) 18 FCR 221, applied Cavell v Repatriation Commission (1988) 9 AAR 534, applied Sheehy v Repatriation Commission (1996) 66 FCR 569, cited Banovich v Repatriation Commission (1986) 69 ALR 395, applied Hall v Repatriation Commission (1994) 33 ALD 454, referred to Lamers v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 24, cited Drake v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1979) 46 FLR 409, cited Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408, cited Grant v Repatriation Commission (1999) 57 ALD 1, applied Budworth v Repatriation Commission (2001) 33 AAR 48, cited Repatriation Commission v Budworth (2001) 33 AAR 476, cited Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321, referred to McMullen v Commissioner for Superannuation (1985) 61 ALR 189, referred to Repatriation Commission v Flentjar (1997) 47 ALD 67, followed Anthonypillai v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (2001) 106 FCR 426, distinguished Grundman v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 892, followed Brackenreg v Comcare Australia (1995) 56 FCR 335, cited
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