Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Spaul v Comcare [2012] FCA 741 Citation: Spaul v Comcare [2012] FCA 741
Appeal from: Spaul v Comcare [2011] AATA 435
Parties: FRANK SPAUL v COMCARE
File number: VID 789 of 2011
Judge: GRAY J
Date of judgment: 11 July 2012
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – whether Tribunal failed to deal with an argument put on behalf of the applicant – whether such failure raises question of law ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – appeal on question of law – issue not determined by Tribunal – issue dependent on finding of fact by Tribunal that was not made – whether Court should deal with issue – whether exercise of judicial power to determine question of law – whether advisory opinion
Legislation: Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ss 44(1), 44(7) Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ss 8, 8(6)(a), 8(6)(b), 8(6)(c), 8(9B), 8(9C), 8(10), 19, 19(2)
Cases cited: Dunstan v Comcare [2011] FCAFC 108 followed
Date of hearing: 27 February 2012
Place: Melbourne
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 26
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr LT Grey
Solicitor for the Applicant: C & M Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr B Dube
Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION VID 789 of 2011
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN: FRANK SPAUL
Applicant
AND: COMCARE
Respondent
JUDGE: GRAY J DATE OF ORDER: 11 JULY 2012 WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
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