Thompson, W.H. v. Repatriation Commission [1988] FCA 8

Thompson, W.H. v. Repatriation Commission [1988] FCA 8

The Tribunal erred in law by holding that 'incurred danger' in s 36(a)(i) of the Veterans' Entitlement Act 1986 required an actual risk of harm arising as a direct result of the enemy's activities, rather than objectively determined real or liable danger. The rejection of the probative value of the 'Member Served in Combat Zone' stamp was also an error of law. The matter is to be remitted for reconsideration accordingly.

Parties
Appellant: Walter Harold Thompson; Respondent: Repatriation Commission
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 January 1988
Procedural Posture
Administrative Law Appeal / Appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal to the Federal Court Under S 44 Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975
Outcome
Appeal allowed; decision of the Tribunal set aside; matter remitted for reconsideration
Legal Topics
Entitlement to Service Pension, Interpretation of 'incurred Danger', Appeals on Questions of Law
Administrative Law Veterans Law Entitlement to Service Pension Interpretation of 'incurred Danger' Appeals on Questions of Law

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 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Walter Harold Thompson

Appellant

Repatriation Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Administrative Law Appeal / Appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal to the Federal Court Under S 44 Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Meaning of 'incurred danger' in s 36(a)(i) Veterans' Entitlement Act 1986
  2. 2 Whether error of law occurred by requiring 'actual danger' rather than objective potential danger
  3. 3 Evidential value of 'Member Served in Combat Zone' stamp

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred in law by holding that 'incurred danger' in s 36(a)(i) of the Veterans' Entitlement Act 1986 required an actual risk of harm arising as a direct result of the enemy's activities, rather than objectively determined real or liable danger. The rejection of the probative value of the 'Member Served in Combat Zone' stamp was also an error of law. The matter is to be remitted for reconsideration accordingly.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; decision of the Tribunal set aside; matter remitted for reconsideration

Orders

  • Matter remitted to the Tribunal to reconsider in accordance with these findings
  • Respondent to pay appellant's costs