Secretary, Department of Family & Community Services v Wallace [2002] FCA 784

Secretary, Department of Family & Community Services v Wallace [2002] FCA 784

The AAT did not commit legal error. The respondent's farm income, comprising 42 per cent of total gross income in 1997-98 and 36 per cent in 1998-99, was a significant part of his income. The AAT was entitled to consider his continuing intention and involvement in the farm enterprise, and the four-month interstate absence did not prevent a finding that he remained a farmer continuously for the required two-year period. The appeal was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 June 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal From the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Pursuant to S 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (cth) / Federal Court Appeal on Questions of Law
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['farm Family Restart Scheme' 'restart Income Support' 'definition of Farmer' 'significant Income From Farm Enterprise' 'continuous Period of Farming' 'appeal on Question of Law']
['social Security' 'administrative Law'] ['farm Family Restart Scheme' 'restart Income Support' 'definition of Farmer' 'significant Income From Farm Enterprise' 'continuous Period of Farming' 'appeal on Question of Law']

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 the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Pursuant to S 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (cth) / Federal Court Appeal on Questions of Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the AAT erred by taking account of the respondent's intention as to his principal source of income when deciding whether he derived a significant part of his income from the farm enterprise." "Whether the respondent's four-month interstate absence meant he had not been a farmer for a continuous period of at least two years immediately before 23 November 1999." 'Whether the AAT erred in finding that the respondent had returned to the farm on a number of occasions during the period of absence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The AAT did not commit legal error. The respondent's farm income, comprising 42 per cent of total gross income in 1997-98 and 36 per cent in 1998-99, was a significant part of his income. The AAT was entitled to consider his continuing intention and involvement in the farm enterprise, and the four-month interstate absence did not prevent a finding that he remained a farmer continuously for the required two-year period. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

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