Youngnickel v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 1691

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Youngnickel v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 1691 VETERANS' AFFAIRS – appeal from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – application of the four steps set out in Deledio – whether there was no material to support clinical onset of the applicant's alcohol abuse and dependence – whether the Tribunal's finding that there was no "reasonable hypothesis" constituted an error of law – whether the determination of whether there is or is not a "reasonable hypothesis" is a question of law or of fact – the weight given to facts which may give rise to a "reasonable hypothesis" is a matter for the Tribunal WORDS & PHRASES – "reasonable hypothesis"

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 44 Veterans' Entitlement Act 1986 (Cth) s 6, s 120(1), s 120(3), s 120(4), s 120(6), s 120A Bull v Repatriation Commission (2001) 188 ALR 756 Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408 Byrnes v Repatriation Commission (1993) 177 CLR 564 Connors v Repatriation Commission [2000] FCA 783 East v Repatriation Commission (1987) 16 FCR 517 Hardman v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 1174 Lees v Repatriation Commission (2002) 125 FCR 331 Repatriation Commission v Bey (1997) 79 CLR 364 Repatriation Commission v Cornelius [2002] FCA 750 Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82 Repatriation Commission v Owens (1996) 70 ALJR 904

TERRENCE JOHN YOUNGNICKEL v REPATRIATION COMMISSION NSD143 OF 2004 BENNETT J 20 DECEMBER 2004 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD143 OF 2004

ON APPEAL FROM THE VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION

OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN: TERRENCE JOHN YOUNGNICKEL

APPLICANT

AND: REPATRIATION COMMISSION

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: BENNETT J