Application for a writ of mandamus against Hassell, Roland Patrick & Ors Ex Parte Norman, Elys Francis the Commonwealth of Australia

Re: APPLICATION for a Writ of Mandamus against ROLAND PATRICK HASSELL, DESMOND
MATTHEW TEHAN and STANLEY McLEISH HARRIS a Repatriation Review Tribunal;
Ex parte: ELYS FRANCES NORMAN and THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
No. WA G23 of 1984
Repatriation

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Toohey J.

CATCHWORDS

Repatriation - war widow's pension - summons to applicant to attend hearing by Repatriation Review Tribunal - objection by applicant's representative - request to have questions referred to Federal Court refused - writ of prohibition - whether issuing of summons capable of review - whether Tribunal may require applicant to attend to give evidence - investigative function of Tribunal

Repatriation Act 1920 ss. 24AA, 107VC, 107VF, 107VG, 107VH, 107VU, 107VV, 107VY, 107VZU

Judiciary Act 1903 s.39B

HEARING

PERTH

#DATE 20:8:1984

ORDER

1. The application for a writ of prohibition

against Roland Patrick Hassell, Desmond Matthew Tehan and Stanley McLiesh Harris be dismissed.

JUDGE1

This is an application for a writ of prohibition against the members of the Repatriation Review Tribunal established by the Repatriation Act 1920.
2. I have just delivered reasons for judgement in a similar application made by Mrs. Pride against the same members of the Tribunal. Idid so on the basis of written submissions which, it was agreed, would apply to the present application. i adopt what I said in my reasons for judgement in the application brought by Mrs. Pride and, for those reasons, Mrs. Norman's application must be dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant sought a writ of mandamus to prevent the respondents, who were members of the Repatriation Review Tribunal, from compelling her to attend a hearing. The applicant, a war widow, was contesting the cessation of her pension, and the Tribunal had issued a summons for her to attend and provide evidence. The representative for the applicant objected to the summons, but the Tribunal denied the request to have the questions referred to the Federal Court. The applicant sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the respondents from enforcing the summons. The central issue was whether the issuance of the summons was subject to judicial review and whether the Tribunal had the authority to require the applicant to attend and give evidence. The Tribunal's investigative function was also considered.

The court found that the issuing of the summons was not subject to judicial review as it did not constitute a decision that could be quashed under the ADJR Act. The court also determined that the Tribunal had the authority to require the applicant to attend and give evidence, as this was part of its investigative function. The court held that the Tribunal's decision to issue the summons was not an error of law and therefore could not be reviewed. The court further found that the Tribunal's investigative function was not limited to examining documents and that it could require individuals to attend and provide evidence.

The application for a writ of prohibition against the respondents was dismissed. The court held that the issuing of the summons was not subject to judicial review and that the Tribunal had the authority to require the applicant to attend and give evidence. The court found that the Tribunal's decision to issue the summons was not an error of law and therefore could not be reviewed. The court also held that the Tribunal's investigative function was not limited to examining documents and that it could require individuals to attend and provide evidence. The applicant's representative had objected to the summons, but the court found that the Tribunal was entitled to require the applicant to attend and give evidence. The court found that the Tribunal's decision to issue the summons was not an error of law and therefore could not be reviewed. The application for a writ of prohibition was dismissed.

Orders of the court

1. The application for a writ of prohibition

against Roland Patrick Hassell, Desmond Matthew Tehan and Stanley McLiesh Harris be dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established