Iversen v Repatriation Commission [2006] FCA 942

Iversen v Repatriation Commission [2006] FCA 942

The Tribunal's conclusion that the applicant was not a representative of the AFOF was open on the evidence and was not infected by error of law. The applicant was paid by the Army, did not establish AFOF membership or accreditation, and the relevant tour's co-sponsorship did not by itself make him a representative of the AFOF.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under S 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (cth) From a Decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Affirming Refusal of a Pension Claim Under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (cth) / Federal Court Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
["meaning of 'representative' in Ministerial Determination" 'eligibility as a Veteran' 'approved Philanthropic Organisation' 'appeal on Question of Law From Administrative Appeals Tribunal']
["veterans' Entitlements" 'administrative Law'] ["meaning of 'representative' in Ministerial Determination" 'eligibility as a Veteran' 'approved Philanthropic Organisation' 'appeal on Question of Law From Administrative Appeals Tribunal']

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 Under S 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (cth) From a Decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Affirming Refusal of a Pension Claim Under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (cth) / Federal Court Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal erred in law in concluding that the applicant was not a 'representative' of the Australian Forces Overseas Fund for the purposes of the Determination made under s 5(13) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth)." 'Whether co-sponsorship of a concert tour, or sponsorship of entertainers by an approved philanthropic organisation, was sufficient to make the applicant a representative of that organisation.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal's conclusion that the applicant was not a representative of the AFOF was open on the evidence and was not infected by error of law. The applicant was paid by the Army, did not establish AFOF membership or accreditation, and the relevant tour's co-sponsorship did not by itself make him a representative of the AFOF.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal."]