Haberfield v Department of Veterans' Affairs as Delegate for Comcare [2002] FCA 1579

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Haberfield v Department of Veterans' Affairs as Delegate for Comcare [2002] FCA 1579 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – appeal on a question of law from the AAT – claim in respect of "attendant care services" under s 29 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) – whether the AAT denied the applicant procedural fairness by relying on medical evidence given on the third day of the hearing – whether rule in Browne v Dunn contravened – significance of applicant not seeking to recall medical witnesses. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – error of law – "Attendant care services" – whether AAT misconstrued definition of Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth), s 29(4) – whether AAT overlooked the need to consider all statutory criteria.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), ss 33(1)(c), 44 Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth), ss 4(1), 29(3), 62(3)(b), 68 Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act 1930 (Cth) Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 (Cth) Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259, cited. Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67, considered. Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550, cited. Dolan v Australian and Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (1993) 42 FCR 206, cited. Lodkowski v Comcare (1998) 53 ALD 371, cited. Hoskins v Repatriation Commission (1991) 32 FCR 443, cited. Allied Pastoral Holdings Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [1983] 1 NSWLR 1, cited. Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408, cited. Karidis v General Motors-Holden Pty Ltd [1971] SASR 422, distinguished. BRIAN HABERFIELD v DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS AS DELEGATE FOR COMCARE N 830 of 2002 SACKVILLE J SYDNEY 19 DECEMBER 2002

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 830 OF 2002