Bannister, M.B. v. See, J. & Anor [1982] FCA 288

Bannister, M.B. v. See, J. & Anor [1982] FCA 288

A review by the Commission under s.31 of the Repatriation Act, which results in affirming a previous refusal of a claim for pension, constitutes a decision refusing a claim under s.107VC and thus entitles the applicant to appeal to the Repatriation Tribunal.

Parties
Appellant: Mavis Beatrice Bannister; Respondent: John See; Respondent: Ashley Cook
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 December 1982
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment of the Full Court
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Repatriation, Entitlement to War Widow's Pension, Onus of Proof, Review Under Repatriation Act, Decision Refusal and Appeals
Administrative Law Repatriation Entitlement to War Widow's Pension Onus of Proof Review Under Repatriation Act Decision Refusal and Appeals

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mavis Beatrice Bannister

Appellant

John See

Respondent

Ashley Cook

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment of the Full Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commission's refusal to alter a previous decision constitutes a 'decision refusing a claim' under s.107VC of the Repatriation Act
  2. 2 Meaning of 'review' under s.31 of the Repatriation Act
  3. 3 Effect of amendments concerning onus of proof

Ratio Decidendi

A review by the Commission under s.31 of the Repatriation Act, which results in affirming a previous refusal of a claim for pension, constitutes a decision refusing a claim under s.107VC and thus entitles the applicant to appeal to the Repatriation Tribunal.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The respondents forthwith notify the President of the Repatriation Review Tribunal of the lodgement of the applicant's application.