Gartrell v Repatriation Commission [2000] FCA 1228

Gartrell v Repatriation Commission [2000] FCA 1228

Ogston was a recent, reasoned and unanimous Full Court decision directly in point, was not clearly wrong, and Keeley did not require a different result because it was distinguishable and consistent with Ogston. The Court therefore had no proper course other than to follow Ogston and dismiss the appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 August 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court in an Appeal on a Point of Law From the Administrative Appeals Tribunal / Full Court Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['statement of Principles Under S 196 B' 'service Related Disability Claim' 'reasonable Hypothesis' 'full Court Precedent']
['administrative Law' "veterans' Entitlements"] ['statement of Principles Under S 196 B' 'service Related Disability Claim' 'reasonable Hypothesis' 'full Court Precedent']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court in an Appeal on a Point of Law From the Administrative Appeals Tribunal / Full Court Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a statement of principles determined under s 196B of the Veterans Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth), made after lodgement of a claim and negating a reasonable hypothesis that the claimed disability was service related, applies so that the claim must be determined in accordance with that statement of principles.' 'Whether Ogston v Repatriation Commission (1999) 86 FCR 578 should be followed, or whether Repatriation Commission v Keeley [2000] FCA 532 required a different result.']

Ratio Decidendi

Ogston was a recent, reasoned and unanimous Full Court decision directly in point, was not clearly wrong, and Keeley did not require a different result because it was distinguishable and consistent with Ogston. The Court therefore had no proper course other than to follow Ogston and dismiss the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal is dismissed.']