Nolan v Repatriation Commission [1999] FCA 130

Nolan v Repatriation Commission [1999] FCA 130

The appellant failed to show error in the Tribunal's conclusion that she was not an allied veteran. The Army and Air Force Exchange Service was not part of the forces or services referred to in the definition of defence force established by an allied country, and the appellant was neither appointed nor enlisted as required. Although she was not required to wear a uniform or insignia or carry arms, she did not satisfy par 5R(2)(d), so she could not rely on subs 5R(2). She therefore did not establish qualifying service.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 February 1999
Procedural Posture
Veterans' Entitlement Appeal Concerning Qualifying Service for a Service Pension / Appeal to the Federal Court From an Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision Affirming the Respondent's Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['qualifying Service' 'allied Veteran' 'defence Force Established by an Allied Country' 'auxiliary Services' 'civilian Non Combatants' 'army and Air Force Exchange Service' 'uniforms and Arms Requirements']
["veterans' Entitlements" 'administrative Law'] ['qualifying Service' 'allied Veteran' 'defence Force Established by an Allied Country' 'auxiliary Services' 'civilian Non Combatants' 'army and Air Force Exchange Service' 'uniforms and Arms Requirements']

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

Veterans' Entitlement Appeal Concerning Qualifying Service for a Service Pension / Appeal to the Federal Court From an Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision Affirming the Respondent's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appellant was an allied veteran within the meaning of subs 5C(1) of the Veterans' Entitlement Act 1986 (Cth)." 'Whether the Army and Air Force Exchange Service was an auxiliary service of the regular naval, military or airforces of the United States of America.' 'Whether the appellant had been appointed or enlisted as a member of a defence force established by an allied country.' 'Whether the appellant was subject to the rules and conventions of warfare.' "Whether subs 5R(2) of the Veterans' Entitlement Act 1986 (Cth) relieved the appellant from the requirements concerning uniforms, insignia and carrying arms."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to show error in the Tribunal's conclusion that she was not an allied veteran. The Army and Air Force Exchange Service was not part of the forces or services referred to in the definition of defence force established by an allied country, and the appellant was neither appointed nor enlisted as required. Although she was not required to wear a uniform or insignia or carry arms, she did not satisfy par 5R(2)(d), so she could not rely on subs 5R(2). She therefore did not establish qualifying service.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed with costs.']