Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Clearihan v Repatriation Commission (No 2) [2020] FCA 1276 File number: VID 762 of 2019
Judgment of: MOSHINSKY J
Date of judgment: 4 September 2020
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – form of orders to be made following appeal on a question of law from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – where the Court found the Tribunal had erred in its findings relation to a particular period of time – whether the Court should determine the applicant's entitlement to a special rate of pension in relation to that period, or remit the matter to the Tribunal
Legislation: Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), s 44 Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth), ss 24, 25
Cases cited: Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Caper Pty Ltd (No 2) (2012) 132 ALD 475 Grundman v Repatriation Commission (2001) 66 ALD 125 Repatriation Commission v Bawden (2012) 206 FCR 296 Repatriation Commission v Butcher (2007) 94 ALD 364 Repatriation Commission v Hill (2002) 69 ALD 581
Division: General Division
Registry: Victoria
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Number of paragraphs: 8
Date of last submissions: 28 August 2020
Date of hearing: Determined on the papers
Counsel for the Applicant: Ms F Ryan
Solicitor for the Applicant: Williams Winter
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms C Symons
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
ORDERS VID 762 of 2019
BETWEEN: KEITH CLEARIHAN Applicant
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