McMillan, Mervyn Leonard & Ors v Repatriation Commission [1998] FCA 127

McMillan, Mervyn Leonard & Ors v Repatriation Commission [1998] FCA 127

Section 120A(2) did not prevent determination of the applicants' claims because relevant Statements of Principles were already in existence. The subsection creates a bar only where the RMA has announced an investigation in respect of a relevant kind of injury, disease or death, and that bar is displaced if a Statement of Principles has been determined. A review of an existing SoP does not require the Commission or AAT to defer the claims. Senior Member Handley was therefore correct to refuse the adjournments and affirm the decisions under review.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 February 1998
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Seven Decisions of the Veterans' Appeals Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal / Appeal to the Federal Court of Australia From AAT Refusal of Adjournment and Affirmation of Decisions Under Review
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
["veterans' Pension Claims" 'statements of Principles' 'repatriation Medical Authority Review' 'adjournment Before Administrative Appeals Tribunal' "construction of S 120 A(2) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (cth)"]
['veterans Affairs' 'administrative Law' 'statutory Interpretation'] ["veterans' Pension Claims" 'statements of Principles' 'repatriation Medical Authority Review' 'adjournment Before Administrative Appeals Tribunal' "construction of S 120 A(2) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (cth)"]

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 Seven Decisions of the Veterans' Appeals Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal / Appeal to the Federal Court of Australia From AAT Refusal of Adjournment and Affirmation of Decisions Under Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether s 120A(2) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) prevented the Repatriation Commission or the AAT from determining claims while reviews of relevant Statements of Principles were being conducted by the Repatriation Medical Authority or Specialist Medical Review Council." "Whether Senior Member Handley erred in refusing the applicants' adjournment applications and affirming the decisions under review."]

Ratio Decidendi

Section 120A(2) did not prevent determination of the applicants' claims because relevant Statements of Principles were already in existence. The subsection creates a bar only where the RMA has announced an investigation in respect of a relevant kind of injury, disease or death, and that bar is displaced if a Statement of Principles has been determined. A review of an existing SoP does not require the Commission or AAT to defer the claims. Senior Member Handley was therefore correct to refuse the adjournments and affirm the decisions under review.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.']