Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Hogno v Repatriation Commission [2010] FCA 1044 Citation: Hogno v Repatriation Commission [2010] FCA 1044
Appeal from: Re Hogno and Repatriation Commission [2010] AATA 306
Parties: DENNIS HOGNO v REPATRIATION COMMISSION
File number: NSD 591 of 2010
Judge: FLICK J
Date of judgment: 24 September 2010
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – reasons of Tribunal to be adequately explained – questions of law – reasons of the Tribunal to be read in a balanced and fair manner – findings of fact VETERANS' AFFAIRS – reasonable hypothesis incapacity is war-caused – need for satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt that hypothesis is to be rejected – entitlement to special rate of pension – substantial cause of incapacity
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), s 44 Legislation: Federal Court Rules, O 53 r 3(2) Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth), ss 14, 19, 24, 120
Australian Postal Corporation v Hughes [2009] FCA 1057, 111 ALD 579, cited Australian Telecommunications Corporation v Lambroglou (1990) 12 AAR 515, followed Baljas v Repatriation Commission [2009] FCA 171, cited Banovich v Repatriation Commission (1986) 69 ALR 395, cited Birdseye v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2003] FCAFC 232, 38 AAR 55, applied Birtles v Repatriation Commission (1991) 33 FCR 290, cited Black v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCAFC 189, cited Brown v The Repatriation Commission (1985) 7 FCR 302, cited Brown v Repatriation Commission [2006] FCA 914, followed Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408, considered Byrne v Repatriation Commission [2007] FCAFC 126, 242 ALR 620, considered Byrnes v Repatriation Commission (1993) 177 CLR 564, applied Commissioner of Taxation v Trail Bros Steel & Plastics Pty Ltd [2010] FCAFC 94, followed Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60, cited Forbes v Repatriation Commission [2000] FCA 328, 101 FCR 50, applied Giesen v Repatriation Commission [2005] FCA 846, 87 ALD 347, cited Cases cited: Hall v Repatriation Commission [2007] FCA 2021, followed Hogno and Repatriation Commission, Re [2010] AATA 306, affirmed Hussain v Minister for Foreign Affairs [2008] FCAFC 128, 169 FCR 241, cited Inco Ships Pty Ltd v Finlay Murdoch Hardman [2007] FCA 1138, 167 FCR 294, cited Kowalski v Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission [2010] FCAFC 10, 114 ALD 8, cited Leane v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCA 889, cited Leane v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCAFC 83, 81 ALD 625, cited Magill v Repatriation Commission [2002] FCA 744, cited Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259, applied Price Street Professional Centre Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2007] FCAFC 154, 67 ATR 544, cited Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82, considered Repatriation Commission v Van Heteren [2003] FCA 888, 75 ALD 703, cited Seymour v The Migration Agents Registration Authority [2007] FCAFC 76, 45 AAR 370, followed SZBYR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] HCA 26, 235 ALR 609, cited TNT Skypak International (Aust) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 82 ALR 175, 88 ATC 4279, 19 ATR 1067, cited Tunks v Repatriation Commission [2008] FCA 521, 102 ALD 274, distinguished Van Ewijk v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 17, 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