Angre v Chief of Navy (No 2)

Angre v Chief of Navy (No 2) involved the appellant, a former naval officer, who sought to appeal a decision of the Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal (the Tribunal). The Tribunal had dismissed an appeal against a decision by the Chief of Navy to terminate the appellant's employment. The court was required to determine whether the Tribunal had the power to allow the appellant to adduce and rely on additional documentary evidence in his appeal. The appellant contended that the Tribunal had incidental powers under section 23(1) of the Defence Force Discipline Appeals Act 1955 (Cth) to receive fresh or new evidence on appeal, while the respondent argued that the power to receive fresh or new evidence was exhaustively defined by section 23(2).

The court held that the Tribunal did not have the power to allow the appellant to adduce and rely on additional documentary evidence. The court found that section 23(2) of the Act constituted the Tribunal's exhaustive power to receive fresh or new evidence on appeal, and that there was no incidental power under section 23(1) to receive fresh or new evidence. The court also held that the appellant's application for leave to amend the grounds of appeal was not made in accordance with the requirements of the Act. The court found that the appellant's proposed grounds of appeal were not variations of the original grounds of appeal, but rather constituted a new and distinct ground of appeal that had not been previously raised.

The court dismissed the appellant's application for leave to amend the grounds of appeal and to adduce and rely on additional documentary evidence. The court held that the Tribunal did not have the power to allow the appellant to adduce and rely on additional documentary evidence, and that the appellant's proposed grounds of appeal were not variations of the original grounds of appeal. The court further held that the appellant's application for leave to amend the grounds of appeal was not made in accordance with the requirements of the Act. The court did not make any orders in relation to the appeal.