Conway v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCA 704

Conway v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCA 704

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds did not raise a substantial question of law: the assertion that the Tribunal failed to take a realistic approach to par 24(2)(b) did not raise a question of law, and the Tribunal's reasons identified its material finding and the objective facts on which it relied, satisfying subs 43(2B) of the AAT Act.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From a Decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Pursuant to S 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (cth) / Leave to Appeal, Filed Out of Time
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'question of Law' 'special Rate Pension' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'genuinely Seeking Remunerative Work']
['administrative Law' "veterans' Entitlements"] ['appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'question of Law' 'special Rate Pension' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'genuinely Seeking Remunerative Work']

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 Leave to Appeal From a Decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Pursuant to S 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (cth) / Leave to Appeal, Filed Out of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted where the application was filed out of time.' "Whether the Tribunal incorrectly applied par 24(2)(b) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth)." 'Whether the Tribunal failed to give adequate reasons as allegedly required by subs 43(2B) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth).' 'Whether any substantial question of law was raised.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds did not raise a substantial question of law: the assertion that the Tribunal failed to take a realistic approach to par 24(2)(b) did not raise a question of law, and the Tribunal's reasons identified its material finding and the objective facts on which it relied, satisfying subs 43(2B) of the AAT Act.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal be refused.' "The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings, including reserved costs."]