Brown v Repatriation Commission

Case [1985] FCA 236


CATCHWORDS

-

._

Bdminlstratlve Law - Judlcial Revlew - Repatriatlon Act - death of

former member of Armed Forces

from carcinoma - refusal by Repatrlation

Review Tribunal to qrant applicant’s clam for

war wldow’s penslon -

whether on appeal to Federal Court the whole declsion of the Trlbunal

was open to review bv the Court

- whether an the evidence before

It

the Tribunal could conclude that It

was established beyond reasonable

doubt that the

member‘s death dld not arise

out of or was not

attrll?ut,ible to war service.

Repatriatlon Act 1920:

ss . 31, 47, 101. 107VC. 107VG. 107VZZH.

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976: S. 19.

Income Tax and Socid Servlces Contribution Act

1336: S. 196(1).

Admmistratlve appeals Trlbunal Act

1475: S. 44(1)

SARAH SYBIL BROWN

v. THE REPATRIATION COMMISSION

WdG 6 3 of 1984

BOWPI S. J. , FISHER & LOCKHART JJ.

7 JUNE 1985

SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COTJRT OF AUSTRALIA

1

)

AUSTRALIA

WESTERN

)

No. WAG

63 of 1984

)

-_

REGISTRY

DISTRICT

)

)

DIVISION

GENERAL

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF

AUSTRALIA

SARAH SYBIL

BRlOWN

Appellant

THE REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

JUDGES MAKING ORDER:

BOWEN C.J., FISHER and LOCKHART JJ.

EATE OF ORDER:

7 JUNE 1485

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

MINUTE OF ORDER

THE CfiUFT ORDERS

THkT:

1.

The appeal

be

dlsmissed.

7

The appellant. Sarsh

Syb l l Brown, pay to che respondent, The

I.

Repatrlation Commlssicn,

~ t s

costs of the appeal.

C J O T E :

Settlement and e n t r y

of orders is dealt with in Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

1

1

WESTERN AUSTRALIA

)

No. WAG 63 of 1984

1

REGISTRY

UISTRICT

1 1

DIVISION

SEIEPAL

!

ON ".PPE.AL FRGM THE FEDERAL C0UP.T OF

AUSTRALIA

SAR9H SYBIL BROWN

Appellant

THE REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

Bowen C.J., Fisher and Lockhart

JJ

7 June 1985

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE CGURT

I

This 1 s an

appeal from a Judgment of a

sinule Judqe of thls

Court (Toohey J . i dismissing the appellant's appeal

from a decision nf

the Repatriation Renew Trlbunal ("the Trlbunal") that chere were

insufficient urounds for urantinu the appellant's

clam for a penslon

under the Repatriation Act

1420 ( "the Act").

The appellant S late husband

("the deceased") died on 27

eprll 1974. He was a

member of the R.A.B.F. from 11 March 1444 to 18

May 1945 and served

m New Gulnea from

11 March 1945 to

28 April 1945.

The cause

of his

death was fulmmating Infection due to widespread

malignancy from carclnoma

of the rectum. The appellant lodged a claim

2.

for a pension on 24 Auqust 1974.

The clam was rejected by the

-

Repatrlation

Board

on 26 September 1974 and

appeals

to

the

Repatriation Commisslon were subsequently dlsallowed.

There

was a

further appeal to the War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal which

was dlsallowed In 1978.

On 17 February 1981 the appellant requested the Commisslun to

reconslder its earlier declsion pursuant to sub-S.

31(1)

of…

Continue reading Brown v Repatriation Commission

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Brown v Repatriation Commission [1985] FCA 236
Case
[1985] FCA 236
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sarah Sybil Brown, the appellant, brought an appeal to the Federal Court of Australia against the decision of the Repatriation Review Tribunal, which was upheld by the Federal Court. The appellant's late husband had died of carcinoma of the rectum, and she had lodged a claim for a pension under the Repatriation Act 1920, which was rejected. The primary issue was whether the Tribunal's decision that the deceased's death did not arise out of or was not attributable to his war service was correct. The Full Court considered the scope of its review of the Tribunal's decision, concluding that the appeal was limited to questions of law and did not extend to a general rehearing of the matter. The Court also found that the Tribunal's conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased's death was attributable to his war service was supported by the medical evidence before it. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.