Repatriation Commission v Walters [2001] FCA 228

Repatriation Commission v Walters [2001] FCA 228

The AAT erred in law by determining the case on the basis of the wrong Statement of Principles (Instrument No 134 of 1996) rather than Instrument No 1 of 1995, affecting the factual inquiry required and potentially the outcome; thus, the decision must be set aside and remitted for fresh determination by the AAT according to law.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed; decision of the AAT set aside and remitted
Legal Topics
['review of Administrative Decisions' 'application of Statements of Principles' "war Widow's Pension" "veterans' Entitlements Act 1986"]

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 / Judgment

  1. 1 ['Whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal erred by applying the wrong Statement of Principles for multiple myeloma' "Whether the AAT misconstrued s 8(1)(d) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986" 'Whether the agreement between parties as to facts and applicable SoP precluded appeal']

Ratio Decidendi

The AAT erred in law by determining the case on the basis of the wrong Statement of Principles (Instrument No 134 of 1996) rather than Instrument No 1 of 1995, affecting the factual inquiry required and potentially the outcome; thus, the decision must be set aside and remitted for fresh determination by the AAT according to law.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; decision of the AAT set aside and remitted

Orders

  • ['The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal made on 18 September 1998 is set aside.' 'The matter is remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for reconsideration according to law and the reasons given.']