Bannister, M.B. v See, J.

CATCHWORDS

Administrative

Law

Repa t r i a t ion -

e n t i t l e m e n t t o

War

Widow's

pension

effect

amendments

t o t h e R e p a t r i a t i o n

Act,

1920 concerning onus of proof - renewed app l i ca t ion

for pension - meaning of

ttreviewtl

i n s.31

of the Act.

Adminis t ra t ive Decis ions	(Judicial	Review) Act, 1977
ss. 5, 7.

Repatr ia t ion Acts Amendment Act, 1977

s.12

Repatr ia t ion Acts	Amendment Ac$	1979
s.11

MAVIS BEATRICE BANNISTER v. J O H N SEE and ASHLEY COOK

I N THE

FEDERAL

COURT

OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN

AUSTRALIA

DISTRICT

REGISTRY

WAG No.16 o f 1982

GENERAL DIVISION

MAVIS BEATRICE BANNISTER

Appellant

AND:

JOHN SEE and ASHLEY COOK

Respondents

O R D E R

. .

CORAM :	FOX, WOODWARD and FRANK1 JJ.
DATE :	16 December 1982

WHERE

MADE:

P e r t h

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal i s allowed.

The respondents

for thwi th

no t i fy

the

Pres

ident

o f t he Repa t r i a t ion

Review

Tribunal

t h e

lodgement

the app l i can t ' s app l i ca t ion he re in .

3 .

The respondents as soon as prac t icable

forward

to	t h e s a i d P r e s i d e n t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n a n d a l l

records and other documents under the control

t h e Department

of Veterans ' Affairs

r e l a t i n g t o t h e d e c i s i o n t o	which	t h e
a p p l i c a t i o n r e l a t e s .

4 .

The

respondents

pay

the

appel lant ' s

taxed

c o s t s of

t h e a p p l i c a t i o n

for

an order

for

review and

o f

t h i s a p p e a l .

I N THE FEDERAL COURT CF

AUSTRALIA

WESTERN

AUSTRALIA

DISTRICT

REGISTRY

WAG No. 16 of 1902

GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN :

MAVIS BEATRICE BANNISTER

Appellant

AND:

JOHN SEE and ASHLEY COOK

Respondents

FELSONS

FOR

JUDGMENT

FOX J.

The

f a c t s i n

t h i s

ma t t e r and r e l evan t s t a tu to ry

p r o v i s i o n s a r e s e t o u t i n t h e

judgment

Woodward

I	agree with his conclusions and the reasons he has

given for them.

A s we

a r e d i f f e r i n g

from Toohey J.,

I should

say something myself of

v iew of the s i tua t ion .

It has not been submit ted that

s.31(1)

the Repat r ia t ion Act

1920

can only be brought into

opera t ion a t t h e i n s t a n c e

t h e Commission,

nor has

it	has been suggested that any of the exclusion provis ions

of s.31(3) apply.

I agree wi th

the

learned

judge

tha t

flreviewtl i n S. 31 (1 )

means

reconsideration, but "changed

circumstances"

may

n o t i n my

opinion be an adequate

way

of descr ib ing

the pre-condi t ions

rev iew.

n o t n e c e s s a r y i n t h i s c a s e t o a r r i v e a t

decision on

t h i s matter.

Cer t a in ly

the sub - sec t ion

is not

intended

merely

to provide an avenue

for

f u r t h e r a p p e a l , a f t e r

t he re has been

de te rmina t ion by

t h e Commission

o r t h e

Tribunal.

I t can be

assumed

that obviously hopeless

o r

mere ly vexa t ious appl ica t ions	would	be excluded from
review.

o f s i g n i f i c a n c e t h a t t h e r e v i e w

i s

"any assessment, decision

o r

determination

i n r e l a t i o n

to pens ionf1 .

The

scope of

reviewzble matters

wide.

i s

p l a i n

t h a t

the r ev iew can l ead to r e su l t s o f

importance;

sub-section

(2 ) makes

c l e a r t h a t

revocat ion and v a r i a t i o n of an assessment

of pension

are

included.

The

submiss ion

tha t

s.31

i s n o t p a r t

the appea l machinery of the	Act	is	ra the r bes ides the
poin t .

seems reasonably clear, despite

language

t o t h e c o n t r a r y

i n some

documents,

t h a t t h e r e

was

review.

\illat

was

done,

as evidenced

the

Commission's

Reasons

fo r Dec i s ion ,

was

cons idera t ion of the fac ts

and

mer i t s o f t he ma t t e r .

3 .

When

it goes beyond

i t s screening funct ion,

t he Commission i s embarking

upon

the

review.

It would

s t r ange r e su l t , hav ing

i n mind

the scope

o f

i t s

power when

it does so,

i f an appeal were not

open t o

unsuccess fu l app l i can t

fo r

pension.

Section

107VC(l)

r e f e r s t o t h e

r e f u s a l o f

claim.

The

appl ica t ion under

s.31

can properly be regarded as

claim.

I n

t h e p r e s e n t c a s e t h e r e

was

i n substance

and

i n f a c t t h e r e f u s a l o f

Mrs.

Barnis te rns c la im.

second

refusal,

doubt ,

but

still a re fusa l .

The

a p p e a l r e a l l y

turns

t h i s a s p e c t ,

namely

t h a t of

a s ses s ing and

cha rac t e r i s ing

what

t he

Commission

did.

o f

t h e view

t h a t s . l O 7 V C

app l i e s and

t h a t

Krs.

Bannis te r ' s appl ica t ion should be dea l t

w i t h

accordingly.

I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN

AUSTRALIA

DISTRICT REGISTRY

WAG No. 16 of 1982

GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN :

MAVIS BEATRICE

BANNISTER

Appellant

AND:

J O H N SEE and ASHLEY

COOK

Respondents

REASONS

FOR

JUDGMENT

WOODWARD J.

This i s an appeal from

a decision by

Toohey J.

dismissing

appl icat ion, under the Adminis t ra t ive

Dec i s ions ( Jud ic i a l

Review)

A c t 1977,

by t h e widow of

former serviceman

who

i s

seeking to reopen the ques t ion

h e r e n t i t l e m e n t t o

pens ion pursuant to the

Repa t r i a t ion Act

1920.

The appl icant ! s husband died

on 21 March 1975.

She lodged

c la im for acceptance

of h i s d e a t h

as being

r e l a t e d t o h i s

war

service. That claim

was

r e j e c t e d

Repatr ia t ion Board.

appea l

t o

the Repa t r i a t ion

Commission

was

dismissed.

fu r the r appea l

t o

War

Pensions Ent i t lement

Appeal

Tribunal-was a l s o u l t ima te ly

dismissed

2 May

1978, b u t no t before the mat te r had

been remit ted

t o t he Repa t r i a t ion

Commission

f o r it t o

recons ider

i t s

d e c i s i o n i n t h e l i g h t

o f

fresh evidence

produced by the appl icant in support of her c la im.

w i l l be

seen tha t these var ious proceedings

took place

over a p e r i o d o f

some

three years .

Between

the recons idera t ion by

the

Repa t r i a t ion Commission

and

t h e f i n a l d i s m i s s a l

o f

t h e

appl icantss appeal by the

Mar

Pensions Entit lement Appeal Tribunal,

some

very

s i g n i f i c a n t

amendments

were

made

to the Repa t r i a t ion Ac t .

I n p a r t i c u l a r ,

a new

s.47

came in to fo rce on

October

1977, which

provided,

i n sub - sec t ion

(Z),

“The

Commission,

Board,

Appesl

Tribunal

or Assessment Appeal

Tribunal s h a l l

g r a n t t h e

claim

a p p l i c a t i o n or

allow

the appea l ,

as t h e c a s e

may

be,

unless

s a t i s f i e d ,

beyond reasonable

doubt,

tha t

t h e r e a r e i n s u f f i c i e n t

grounds for gran t ing the c la im or

a p p l i c a t i o n

al lowing the appeal” .

Fu r the r amendments

t o t h e Act

came

i n t o

operat ion on

1 July 1979.

These amended s.47(2) without

changing

i t s

substance and,

among

o ther th ings ,

e s t a b l i s h e d a

new

Repat r ia t ion

Review

Tr ibuna l t o t ake

the p l ace o f t he

War

Pensions Entit lement Appeal

Tribunals, and i n sub-paragraph 2(a)

s.l07VH,

requi red

the Tr ibuna l

t o se t a s i d e any decis ion refusing

claim

o r a p p l i c a t i o n f o r p e n s i o n 9 m l e s s

i s

s a t i s f i e d ,

beyond

reasonable doubt , tha t there were insuf f ic ien t

grounds

for

gran t ing the c l a im

o r appl ica t ion" .

The

effect of these

and

o t h e r r e l a t e d

amendments

t o t h e Act was considered by

Toohey J.,

t h e Full

Court

o f t h i s Cour t , and f ina l ly by the

High

C o u r t , i n

Repa t r i a t ion Commission

Law (1980) 29 A.L.R.

64,

(1980) 31 A.L.R.

140, and (1981) 36 A.L.R.

411.

It w a s i n t h e l i g h t o f t h e s e

amendments

and

dec is ions

t h a t the appl icant sought

t o renew h e r claim

f o r

pension. She did

s o

through

l e t t e r w r i t t e n b y

t h e Legacy

advocate,

Mr. I . H .

Davies, on 1 J u l y 1981.

Tha t l e t t e r , omi t t i ng fo rma l pa r t s ,	was	i n	the fo l lowing
terms,

"Application is made for acceptance

o f t h e

claim by Mrs.

Bann i s t e r fo r

a War

Widows

Pension.

This

appl icat ion

i s made

under Sec t ions

and/or

107VL( 1) of the

R e p a t r i a t i o n Act

and

t h e I t s u f f i c i e n t

reasont1 of "special c i rcumstancest ' are c l a i m e d t o b e t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e

p rov i s ions

o f

t he Repa t r i a t ion

A c t now

given by the

Full

Federal Court .

The

ex-member

died from Motor Neurone

Disease and medical reports were submitted

from

two

l e a d i n g a u t h o r i t i e s

Professor

Kakulas -

world recognised authori ty on

neu ro log ica l d i seases ;

and

Professor

R.L.

Dawkins, Professor of

Immunology,

University of W.A.

and Queen Elizabeth

Medical

Centre.

4 .

Professor Kakulas

drew

a t t e n t i o n

t o t h e

unknown

o r i g i n

t h e d i s e a s e

and,

inference,

supported

acceptance

of the claim because

the

doubt

regard ing or ig in ; and Professor

Dawkins

( a t t h a t t i m e

D r .

Dawkins)

po in ted out

tha t an accep ted

d i s a b i l i t y c o u l d

parade

as M.N.D.

and vice versa .

t h e l a t t e r o p i n i o n

i s c o r r e c t ,

i n this case an A/D parades as, what

l a t e r became,

t h e

f a t a l

c o n d i t i o n .

any	case it i s claimed that no reason-

able man

can.be convinced beyond

reasonable doubt

that there is no

subs t ance to

t h i s

claim

p a r t i c u l a r l y

as n e i t h e r o f t h e

eminent medical

men

are p r e p a r e d t o

deny

it.

i s r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e

widow's

claim

be granted for thwi th .

The

Repa t r i a t ion

Commission

r e p l i e d t o t h a t

l e t t e r on 12 November

1981 saying,

among o ther th ings ,

"The Commission has dec ided tha t

w i l l

r econs ider the case under sec t ion

the Repa t r i a t ion Act.

This case has been programmed

for

a t t e n t i o n ,

however,

ca ses

a r e d e a l t

with b y t h e

Commission

in ch rono log ica l

order.

view

o f

t h e c u r r e n t

workload

being experienced by the

Commission,

d e c i s i o n i n t h i s c a s e

may

be delayed

f o r a

sho r t pe r iod .

I would l i k e t o

a s su re you

t h a t e v e r y e f f o r t

w i l l be

made

t o r e s o l v e t h i s

case with a

minimum of delay."

th i s

t ime the

High Court had dismissed the

appea l i n Law's Case.

It did so on 16 October 1981 .

5 .

On 22 December 1981 t h e Commission wrote t o

t h e a p p l i c a n t ,

Repa t r i a t ion Commission

has

noted your reques t for recons idera t ion

of your c la im for acceptance of your

husband ' s dea th as due to h is se rv ice .

A f t e r c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n , t h e

Commission

has dec ided tha t su f f i c i en t

r eason does no t ex i s t t o war ran t

reviewing the

War

Pensions Entit lement

Appeal Tribunal decision of

May

1978

i n r e s p e c t o f

the memberss death.

A	copy of the Commission's reasons

f o r i t s dec i s ion i s enclosed.

However, your case may be

re-opened

any time by the submission,

i n w r i t i n g ,

of further evidence which

would

have been

r e l e v a n t t o t h e

Commission's decision.

This evidence

may be medical

o r l a y ,

i n the form of a c e r t i f i c a t e o f ( s i c ) s ta tement which might he lp re la te your

husbands s

d e a t h

t o h i s

s e r v i c e .

The enclosed

'Reasons for Decisions dated

December

1981,

were

s e t o u t

i n a

two-page document which

canvassed the evidence to which

Y r .

D a v i e s ' l e t t e r

had

drawn

attention and concluded

!'The

Commission

i s s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h e

judgment by the

Full

Court of the Federal

Court

i n t h e c a s e o f R e p a t r i a t i o n

Commission

Nancy Law does not

i n any way a f f e c t t h e

p rev ious cons ide ra t ions g iven to the r epor t s

Professors Kakulas

and

Dawkins.

The

de te rmin ing au tho r i t i e s who previously considered the widowss claims did not base

their decis ions on misunderstandings

o r

mis in t e rp re t a t ions o f t he Repa t r i a t ion

Act.

6 .

For

these r easons ,

t he

Commission,

having had

f u l l r e g a r d t o t h e

judgment

by the

Full

Court of the Federal Court

i n

t he case o f Repa t r i a t ion

Commission

Nancy

Law,

d o e s n o t c o n s i d e r t h a t

s u f f i c i e n t r e a s o n e x i s t s t o w a r r a n t

fur ther rev iew under Sec t ion

t h e

Repa t r i a t ion Act	i n r e s p e c t	of	t h e widow's
claim.

11 January 1982 M r .

Davies wrote to the

Repa t r i a t ion

Review

Tribunal , appeal ing against

' I the

dec i s ion o f

the Repa t r i a t ion

Commission

se t o u t i n

the

'Reasons' dated

December

1981 no t t o r ev iew

o r

g ran t

t h i s

appeal".

The

l e t t e r p u r p o r t e d t o b e w r i t t e n

p u r s u a n t t o	s . l O 7 V C	o f t he Repa t r i a t ion	Act,	which	i n
p a r t p r o v i d e s

Where the

Commission has made a

d e c i s i o n r e f u s i n g

claim

person

f o r a pension

.... t h a t p e r s o n

may

....

make

a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e T r i b u n a l f o r

review

t he dec i s ion o f t he

Commission."

Where

an app l i ca t ion

i s made

unde r tha t s ec t ion ,

s.lO7VF'

of the

Act

r equ i r e s the Sec re t a ry o f t he

Department

o f	Ve te rans ' Af fa i r s t o no t i fy the P res iden t o f t he

Tribunal , within

d a y s , t h a t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n h a s

been

lodged,

and

then,

soon as

pract

icable

forward

t o

t h e P r e s i d e n t

the

a p p l i c a t i o n a n d a l l r e l e v a n t m a t e r i a l .

The	s e c r e t a r y h a s f a i l e d o r r e f u s e d t o p u t

the mat te r before the Tr ibunal , c la iming tha t the

Commission's

l a t e s t d e c i s i o n

was

n o t

'la

dec is ion re fus ing

a claim by

a pe r son fo r

a pensiont1, i n the terms of

S. 107VC,

and

s o no

appea l l ay to the Tr ibuna l .

The	a p p l i c a n t s e e k s t o r e v i e w t h a t f a i l u r e o r

re fusa l on the ground tha t there has been

f a i l u r e t o

make

d e c i s i o n w i t h i n t h e

meaning of

s.7

o f t h e J u d i c i a l

Review Act.

It would seem t o have been

more appropr ia te

for

t he g round o f app l i ca t ion to have r e fe r r ed to

w r o n g f u l d e c i s i o n n o t t o p u t t h e m a t t e r b e f o r e t h e

Tribunal, and

t o have r e l i e d upon s.5

t h e Act.

However,

no object ion has been taken to the form of the

appl ica t ion .

_ .

The

determination of

th i s matter depends largely

upon t h e meaning and	effect of	s.31(1)	of the Repat r ia t ion
Act 1920.

That sub-section provides,

Whenever

a p p e a r s t o t h e

Commission

that , under

t h i s

Act , suf f ic ien t

reason

exists

for reviewing any assessment,

dec is ion

d e t e r m i n a t i o n i n r e l a t i o n t o

pens ion (o ther than

serv ice pens ion) the

Commission may

review the assessment,

dec i s ion or

determination.

Toohey

took the view that the sub-sect ion

l lcontemplates, not an appeal

from

t h e

or ig ina l assessment , dec is ion

o r

de te rmina t ion but

recons idera t ion of

t ha t a s ses smen t , dec i s ion

o r

determination

because of subsequent events	....
H i s Honour went on,

" A s a resu l t of a review under

s.31

t h e Commission may vary or revoke an

assessment , decis ion

o r

determination

o r

of course

it may

leave that assessment ,

d e c i s i o n

o r determination

stand.

If,

fo l lowing a review under

s.31

t h e

Commission

d e c i d e s t o l e a v e

unchanged an

e a r l i e r d e t e r m i n a t i o n r e f u s i n g

claim

for a pension,

I do no t t h ink

that is

i tsel f

dec i s ion r e fus ing

claim by

person €or a pension ' within

s.lO7VC.

That dec is ion has a l ready been

made

and

was

sub jec t t o appea l unde r Pa r t

I11

o f t he

Act;

a l l t h a t t h e

Commission

has

done	i s t o l e a v e t h a t d e c i s i o n	unchanged
....

It may b e t h a t

i f , following a

review under

S. 31 , t h e g r a n t of

a pension

i s

revoked, there has been

dec is ion

r e f u s i n g a

claim within

s.IO~VC.~~

(His Honour

went

t o s a y t h a t h e

expressed no

view

t h i s m a t t e r . )

Toohey J. was r i g h t i n

so holding, then

c l e a r l y t h e

applicantss

a t tempted appea l to the

Repa t r i a t ion Review

Tribunal was

misconceived and her

a p p l i c a t i o n u n d e r t h e J u d i c i a l

Review

Act must

f a i l .

Unfortunately

f ind myself unable to agree

with Toohey J.

t h e p l a c e o f

s.31

with in the genera l

scheme o f t he

Act.

I b e l i e v e t h a t

an actual

review

previous assessment , decis ion

o r determination

which

takes place because of subsequent events

whether those

events be

change

i n t h e a p p l i c a n t s s c i r c u m s t a n c e s ,

change

i n

t h e

law,

the ava i l ab i l i t y o f € re sh ev idence

o r a

change i n t h e s t a t e

of medical knowledge

- w i l l

g i v e r i s e t o

r igh t of appea l to the Tr ibunal under

P a r t

I11 A

o f t he

A c t i n appropr i a t e cases .

t h i n k t h a t t h i s

mus t c lear ly be

i n t h e

case where

a pension i s revoked, which

Toohey J.

r e fe r r ed

t o without expressing

a concluded opinion.

It i s a l s o

t h e case where t h e Commission "has made a decis ion

r e f u s i n g t o a l t e r t h e e x i s t i n g a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e r a t e

o f pension

o f

member

the Forces1 ' (see s . l07VD(l)(b)) .

The

r i g h t t o

get

back

to the Tr ibuna l a f t e r an unsuccess fu l

appeal,

i f

des i red to submi t fur ther ev idence ,

also recognized by

s.10W1.

The

a p p l i c a t i o n by

t h e Legacy advocate

i n t h i s

case,

of 1 J u l y 1981, was i n

t e r m s

€resh

appl icat ion

f o r a pension.

More impor t an t ,

t h i s

was the

substance

of	t h e a p p l i c a t i o n .

10.

The	f a c t t h a t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n i n v o l v e d t h e

Commission

s t a r t i n g from the p o i n t o f

previous adverse

dec is ion ,

and reviewing the correctness of that decis ion

i n t h e l i g h t

of some alleged changed circumstances

which

g a v e ' s u f f i c i e n t r e a s o n t t o

j u s t i f y

the review, does not

a l t e r

the subs tance of

the

matter.

r e - s t a t e d r e f u s a l

t o r e c o g n i z e

death

se rv ice - r e l a t ed

is,

i n my

view,

Ita dec i s ion r e fus ing a claim by a person for a pensiont1

w i t h i n t h e

meaning of

s . l O 7 V C .

T h i s approach which

I t a k e t o

s.31

(which I

concede has to be based

gene ra l impress ions a s t o

t h e p o l i c y o f t h e

Act

r a the r t han on any ca re fu l ana lys i s

the

words

used)

would

seem

t o b e s u f f i c i e n t t o j u s t i f y

the a l lowing of th i s appea l .

However counse l fo r

the respondents re l ied

an argument before

us which was

re fer red to by counse l

f o r

the

app l i can t , bu t ce r t a in ly no t deve loped by

counsel €or the respondents , before

Toohey J.

This

was

t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t t h e r e

was

a c t u a l

rev

iew pursuant

s.31 of

the

Act i n t h i s case.

A l l

tha t occur red ,

i s s a i d ,

was

cons idera t ion of the

p o s s i b i l i t y o f

review and

d e c i s i o n n o t

t o conduct

one.

This,

it was

argued,

f e l l w e l l s h o r t o f

any

d e c i s i o n t o r e f u s e

pension claim.

11.

I n my

view there

i s fo rce i n t h i s submission.

t h e Commission d e c l i n e s t o

embark

any review,

because

i s

obvious on the face of the reques t

o r

s i m p l e i n q u i r y t h a t t h e r e a r e

adequate changed

c i r c u m s t a n c e s t o c o n s t i t u t e

' s u f f i c i e n t r e a s o n ' f o r

review, then

I b e l i e v e no appeal would l i e t o the

Tribunal.

The

l e g a l i t y

and

good

fa i th of any such

dec is ion could , o f course , be tes ted under the

Adminis t ra t ive Decis ions ( Judic ia l

Review)

A c t 1977.

There w i l l sometimes be

f i n e l i n e

between consideration

whether

o r n o t t o

review

and an actual

review.

The

Commission	s h o u l d t a k e p a i n s t o d i s t i n g u i s h	the	two
processes.

B u t I

n o t b e l i e v e t h a t t h e r e

was

r e f u s a l

t o r e v i e w

i n the present case .

s a y t h i s i n s p i t e o f

the absence of any formal hearing, as contemplated

some

cases by

s.32

of the Act ,

and the use

o f such

expressions

Ifthe Commission

has

d e c i d e d t h a t s u f f i c i e n t

r eason does no t ex i s t t o war ran t

reviewing ( the

e a r l i e r d e c i s i o n ) 1 1 i n t h e l e t t e r o f

December

1981,

and

!Ithe

Commission

.... does not cons ider tha t

s u f f i c i e n t r e a s o n

exists

to warran t fur ther rev iew under

s.31

..l1

i n the accompanying 9Reasons €or Decision' .

This

l a s t

sen tence

seems

t o s u g g e s t t h a t ,

i n t h i s c a s e ,

t h e r e has

been

p a r t i a l o r incomplete review, which

may

wel l

b e t h e t r u e p o s i t i o n .

12.

t h i n k t h a t , w i t h i n t h e

meaning of

s.31,

t h e

Commission

d id ' rev iew' the ear l ie r de te rmina t ion

a s it

should have done

i n t h e l i g h t

o f

t h e s i g n i f i c a n t

changes

i n t h e l a w

which

may

have only been fully

understood

r e s u l t o f t h e d e c i s i o n s i n R e p a t r i a t i o n

Commission v -

Law

(above). Having reviewed

t h a t

de te rmina t ion , the

Commission dec ided to

affirm

it.

For the reasons

I have already given,

I b e l i e v e t h a t

an appeal	l i e s from	t h a t d e c i s i o n t o t h e R e p a t r i a t i o n
Tribunal.

would

therefore uphold the appeal ,

make

t h e

orders sought by the appel lan t

and

d i r e c t t h a t t h e

respondents pay the appel lant ' s taxed costs of the

appea l and the appl ica t ion .

I certlfy that fhi: and the

, preceomg Fa,-:

are a true copy of the

: Reasons ior Juignen! herein oi the Ronourable

Mr. Juslice A E \'.'ocox::ard

I N THE

FEDERAL

COURT

OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	WAG No. 16 o f 1982
GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN :

MAVIS BEATRICE BANNISTER

Appellant

AND:

JOHN SEE and ASHLEY COOK

Respondents

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

FRANK1 J.

I agree wi th the reasons

for judgment o€

Woodward J.

and wi-ch t h e o r d e r s

which he proposes.

[1982] FCA 288

16 Dec 1982