Repatriation Commission v Thompson [2001] FCA 341

Repatriation Commission v Thompson [2001] FCA 341

The majority held that Keeley governed the appeal. Once the respondent applied to the Tribunal for review, he had an accrued substantive right to have the Board's decision reviewed on the basis of the state of affairs concerning Statements of Principles at that time, when no Statement of Principles for irritable bowel syndrome had been determined. Section 120A did not clearly abrogate that accrued right in circumstances where no s 196G notice had been given and the Statement of Principles was determined only after the application for Tribunal review. The primary judge was therefore correct to set aside the Tribunal's decision, and the Commission's appeal was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia Concerning Review of a Veterans' Pension Claim Determination / Full Court Appeal From the Primary Judge's Order Allowing an Appeal From the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Under S 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (cth)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
["veterans' Pension Claim" 'war Caused Disease' 'statements of Principles' 'administrative Appeals Tribunal Review' 'accrued Rights' 'retrospectivity']
["veterans' Affairs" 'administrative Law' 'statutory Interpretation'] ["veterans' Pension Claim" 'war Caused Disease' 'statements of Principles' 'administrative Appeals Tribunal Review' 'accrued Rights' 'retrospectivity']

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 a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia Concerning Review of a Veterans' Pension Claim Determination / Full Court Appeal From the Primary Judge's Order Allowing an Appeal From the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Under S 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (cth)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal erred by applying a Statement of Principles for irritable bowel syndrome determined after the Veterans' Review Board decision and after the respondent applied to the Tribunal, but before the Tribunal's decision." "Whether s 120A of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) required the Tribunal to apply the Statement of Principles in force at the time of its decision." "Whether the respondent had an accrued right to have the Board's decision reviewed according to the law or state of affairs concerning Statements of Principles when the review right accrued." 'Whether Repatriation Commission v Keeley (2000) 98 FCR 108 governed the appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that Keeley governed the appeal. Once the respondent applied to the Tribunal for review, he had an accrued substantive right to have the Board's decision reviewed on the basis of the state of affairs concerning Statements of Principles at that time, when no Statement of Principles for irritable bowel syndrome had been determined. Section 120A did not clearly abrogate that accrued right in circumstances where no s 196G notice had been given and the Statement of Principles was determined only after the application for Tribunal review. The primary judge was therefore correct to set aside the Tribunal's decision, and the Commission's appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

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