Repatriation Commission v Jordan, William Leslie [1997] FCA 491

Repatriation Commission v Jordan, William Leslie [1997] FCA 491

The tribunal did not err in law in finding a reasonable hypothesis that Mr Jordan's aortic stenosis was war-caused; it considered all the material and applied the statutory standard by not being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt there was no sufficient ground for determination. The Commission's arguments were factual and did not establish error of law.

Parties
Applicant: Repatriation Commission; Respondent: William Leslie Jordan
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 June 1997
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Veterans' Entitlements, War Caused Disease, Reasonable Hypothesis, Standard of Proof, Judicial Review
Administrative Law Veterans Law Veterans' Entitlements War Caused Disease Reasonable Hypothesis Standard of Proof Judicial Review

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Repatriation Commission

Applicant

William Leslie Jordan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tribunal accepted as reasonable a hypothesis grounded on a fact denied or not raised by the material
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal failed to consider opposing material in considering the validity of reasoning supporting the hypothesis
  3. 3 Whether the tribunal accepted as reasonable a hypothesis that was no more than a possibility left open but not pointed to by the material

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal did not err in law in finding a reasonable hypothesis that Mr Jordan's aortic stenosis was war-caused; it considered all the material and applied the statutory standard by not being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt there was no sufficient ground for determination. The Commission's arguments were factual and did not establish error of law.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application.