Application for a writ or mandamus against Hassell & ors Ex Parte Elys Frances Norman
[1984] FCA 187
•04 JULY 1984
Re: APPLICATION for a Writ of Mandamus against Roland Patrick Hassell, Deputy
President; Desmond Matthew Tehan, Services Member; and Stanley McLeish Harris,
Member, a Repatriation Review Tribunal
Ex parte: ELYS FRANCES NORMAN
And: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
No. WA G23 of 1984
Repatriation
2 FCR 319
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 mandamus - question of construction - meaning of 'may' - discretion vested in Tribunal with concurrence of President - writ of mandamus inappropriate
Repatriation Act 1920 ss. 31, 107VU, 107VY, 107VZZB, 107VZZG, 107VZZH
Judiciary Act 1903 s. 39B
Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 s. 22B
Copyright Act 1968 s. 161
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 s. 45
Income Tax Assessment Act 1936
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (N.S.W.) s. 5B
HEARING
PERTH
#DATE 4:7:1984
ORDER
The application for a writ of mandamus against Roland Patrick Hassell, Desmond Matthew Tehan and Stanley McLeish Harris be dismissed.
The parties have liberty to apply for directions for the determination of the writ of prohibition and liberty to apply generally.
JUDGE1
This is an application for a writ of mandamus against the members of the Repatriation Review Tribunal established by the Repatriation Act 1920.2. I have just delivered reasons for judgment in a similar application made by Mrs. Pride against the same members of the Tribunal. The present application was heard immediately thereafter. Because the issues involves were identical, counsel for the parties did no more than adopt what they had submitted in the earlier matter. Likewise, for the purposes of this application, I adopt what I said in my reasons for judgment in the application brought by Mrs. Pride. As in that matter, I give leave to the applicant to amend the application by seeking, by way of alternative relief, a writ of prohibition against the members of the Tribunal.
3. Mrs. Norman is the widow of an ex-serviceman. On 29 November 1972 the War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal refused her claim for a pension under the Repatriation Act on the ground that it was not satisfied that the death of her late husband was related to war service. On 29 January 1982 the Repatriation Commission declined to review that decision and Mrs. Norman applied to the Repatriation Review Tribunal for a review of the decision of the Commission. It was at that stage that questions arose concerning her obligation to appear at the Tribunal's hearing. There also arose the question of whether the Tribunal was obliged to refer certain questions of law relating to Mrs. Norman's compellability to appear before the Tribunal or whether it had a discretion so to refer.
4. It is unnecessary to say anything more about the history of this matter. It followed the same course as was taken by Mrs. Pride, it raises precisely the same issues; and it calls for precisely the same order.
0
0