Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Brown v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCA 1130
VETERANS AFFAIRS - entitlements - Statement of Principles - inability to obtain appropriate clinical management of sarcoidosis - meaning of 'inability' Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) Brew v Repatriation Commission (1999) 56 ALD 403; (1999) 94 FCR 80 JUDITH MARY BROWN v REPATRIATION COMMISSION Q175 OF 2002 COOPER J BRISBANE 17 OCTOBER 2003
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY Q175 OF 2002
On appeal from the Veterans' Affairs Division of the Administrative Appeals
Tribunal constituted by Senior Member KL Beddow and Dr P Kennedy
BETWEEN: JUDITH MARY BROWN
APPLICANT
AND: REPATRIATION COMMISSION
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: COOPER J
DATE OF ORDER: 17 OCTOBER 2003
WHERE MADE: BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application is dismissed. 2. The applicant is to pay the costs of the respondent, to be taxed if not agreed. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY Q175 OF 2002
On appeal from the Veterans' Affairs Division of the Administrative Appeals
Tribunal constituted by Senior Member KL Beddow and Dr P Kennedy
BETWEEN: JUDITH MARY BROWN
APPLICANT
AND: REPATRIATION COMMISSION
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: COOPER J
DATE: 17 OCTOBER 2003
PLACE: BRISBANE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
background 1 On 22 December 1999, the applicant lodged a claim under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) ('the Act') for medical treatment and a pension for incapacity arising from a number of medical conditions which included sarcoidosis. The claims were refused as not being war-caused. The decision to refuse the claim was affirmed by the Veteran's Review Board and later by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ('the AAT'). The applicant now seeks a review of the AAT decision, pursuant to s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth). Such an appeal is limited to judicial review to correct legal error. It does not involve merits review of the factual findings made by the AAT.
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