White v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 633

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

White v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 633

VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS – veteran suffering from generalised anxiety disorder and associated alcohol dependence or abuse – whether "experiencing" a severe psychosocial stressor" in the Statement of Principles embodies both objective and subjective elements – whether Administrative Appeals Tribunal committed an error of law in determining that the events did not meet the definition of "severe psychosocial stressor" – conclusions of fact Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) subs 44(1) Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) ss 120, 120A, subss 9(1), 13(1)

Byrnes v Repatriation Commission (1993) 177 CLR 564 cited Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82 followed Repatriation Commission v Hill (2002) 69 ALD 581 referred to Bull v Repatriation Commission (2001) 188 ALR 756 cited Lees v Repatriation Commission [2002] AATA 98 referred to Stoddart v Repatriation Commission (2003) 197 ALR 283 cited Repatriation Commission v Stoddart (2003) 38 AAR 176 cited Woodward v Repatriation Commission (2003) 200 ALR 332 cited PAUL HOWARD WHITE v REPATRIATION COMMISSION No Q 160 of 2003 SPENDER J BRISBANE 24 MAY 2004

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY Q 160 OF 2003

ON APPEAL FROM THE VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN: PAUL HOWARD WHITE

APPLICANT

AND: REPATRIATION COMMISSION

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SPENDER J

DATE OF ORDER: 24 MAY 2004

WHERE MADE: BRISBANE

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