Warren, Roger Charles v Repatriation Commission [1995] FCA 1020

Warren, Roger Charles v Repatriation Commission [1995] FCA 1020

The application was not properly brought under s 6 because the conduct identified occurred after the making of a decision and was not conduct engaged in for the purpose of making a reviewable decision. It could not be saved under s 5 because the 25 January 1995 decision was no longer operative, while the operative 3 October 1995 decision was made more than two months after the application was filed and was subject to full merits review by the Veterans' Review Board. The application therefore did not properly invoke the Federal Court's jurisdiction and could not appropriately be amended.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 December 1995
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) / Respondent's Notice of Motion to Dismiss or Stay the Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['review of Decisions and Conduct' 'adjr Act Jurisdiction' "merits Review by Veterans' Review Board" 'extension of Time']
['administrative Law' 'judicial Review' "veterans' Entitlements"] ['review of Decisions and Conduct' 'adjr Act Jurisdiction' "merits Review by Veterans' Review Board" 'extension of Time']

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

Application for Judicial Review Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) / Respondent's Notice of Motion to Dismiss or Stay the Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the application properly sought review of conduct engaged in for the purpose of making a decision under s 6 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth).' 'Whether the application could be sustained as an application for review of a decision under s 5 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth).' "Whether adequate provision for review under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) affected the application." 'Whether the application properly invoked the jurisdiction of the Federal Court.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was not properly brought under s 6 because the conduct identified occurred after the making of a decision and was not conduct engaged in for the purpose of making a reviewable decision. It could not be saved under s 5 because the 25 January 1995 decision was no longer operative, while the operative 3 October 1995 decision was made more than two months after the application was filed and was subject to full merits review by the Veterans' Review Board. The application therefore did not properly invoke the Federal Court's jurisdiction and could not appropriately be amended.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' 'The applicant pay the costs of the respondent.']