Steele v Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board [1955] HCA 34

High Court of Australia Dixon C.J. Williams, Webb, Fullagar and Kitto JJ. Steele v Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board [1955] HCA 34

ORDER Questions in the case stated answered as follows:—Question 1. If, by reason of the appellant's employment, the respondent board was satisfied that the percentage of his incapacity had not been correctly determined and that it should now be varied, it was open to the respondent board solely on that ground to reclassify him, notwithstanding the matters set out in par. 11 of the case stated.Question 2. Section 83 of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948-1952 in so far as it purports to authorize an appeal to this Court from the decision of the respondent board in this case is a valid enactment of the Parliament of the Commonwealth. Costs of the case stated reserved for the judge disposing of the appeal.

Cur. adv. vult.

The Court delivered the following written judgment:—

June 22, 1955 Dixon C.J., Williams, Webb, Fullagar and Kitto JJ.

The questions for determination upon this case stated arise upon the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948-1952. William Kayle Steele, who complains of a decision of the board set up by that Act, exercised the right which s. 83 purports to confer and appealed to this Court. As might be supposed, the so-called appeal from this administrative body is a proceeding in the original and not the appellate jurisdiction of the Court. Steele's case came before Taylor J., who after hearing evidence stated a case for the Full Court, relying upon the power conferred by s. 18 of the Judiciary Act 1903-1950. Two questions are raised. One concerns the interpretation of the provision applied by the board to Steele's case which he says is, upon its true construction, inapplicable. The other concerns the validity of the legislative attempt to confer authority upon this Court to review decisions of the board.