Doig, Ronald Havelock v Repatriation Commission [1996] FCA 1106

Doig, Ronald Havelock v Repatriation Commission [1996] FCA 1106

The Tribunal did not make the alleged error of law. Its references to the Manning Base Hospital and Mayo Private Hospital were directed to the evidence before it and to whether it could be reasonably satisfied that, as at the application date, the applicant would have been undertaking remunerative accounting, administrative or clerical work but for his war-caused incapacity. The Tribunal did not confine s 24(1)(c) to a particular job, and there was no other concrete evidence that the applicant would have been employed elsewhere at the application date.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 December 1996
Procedural Posture
Appeal From the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on a Question of Law Under S 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 / Federal Court Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['special Rate Pension' 'war Caused Incapacity' 'remunerative Work' 'appeal on Question of Law' 'administrative Appeals Tribunal Review']
['defence and War' "veterans' Entitlements" 'administrative Law'] ['special Rate Pension' 'war Caused Incapacity' 'remunerative Work' 'appeal on Question of Law' 'administrative Appeals Tribunal 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on a Question of Law Under S 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 / Federal Court Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal erred in law by considering whether the veteran was prevented from continuing particular jobs rather than a type of work or field of remunerative activity for the purposes of s 24(1)(c) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986." 'Whether the Tribunal was reasonably satisfied that, as at 15 March 1993, the applicant would have been undertaking remunerative accounting, administrative and clerical work but for his accepted disabilities.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not make the alleged error of law. Its references to the Manning Base Hospital and Mayo Private Hospital were directed to the evidence before it and to whether it could be reasonably satisfied that, as at the application date, the applicant would have been undertaking remunerative accounting, administrative or clerical work but for his war-caused incapacity. The Tribunal did not confine s 24(1)(c) to a particular job, and there was no other concrete evidence that the applicant would have been employed elsewhere at the application date.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

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