Jamieson, Trevor John v Repatriation Commission - [1984] FCA 169

Re: TREVOR JOHN JAMIESON
And: THE REPATRIATION COMMISSION
No. QLD G126 of 1983
Repatriation
2 FCR 311

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Fitzgerald J.(1)

CATCHWORDS

Repatriation - appeal from decision of Repatriation Review Tribunal - conduct of proceedings before the Tribunal - change in composition of those sitting as Tribunal to decide appellant's case - appellant a private in Royal Australian Infantry Corps - injured in motor collision - whether "travelling to ... his place of employment on ... service" - not travelling to "his place of employment" if he left it for private purposes.

Repatriation Act 1920, ss. 107M,107VG,107VH,107VN,107VQ,107VR, 107VZZH, and sub-s. 107VZZK(3)

Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971, s.32

Repatriation - Repatriation Review Tribunal - Change in composition while review part heard - Whether permissible - Whether member of Army returning to base during leave is travelling to his place of employment - Repatriation Act 1920 (Cth), ss 107M, 107VG, 107VH, 107VN, 107VQ, 107VR, 107VZZH, and s. 107VZZK(3).

Words and Phrases - "Travelling to place of employment" - Repatriation Act 1920 (Cth), s. 107M(2).

HEADNOTE

Held: (1) A change in the persons constituting the Repatriation Review Tribunal while an application is part heard is not authorised by the Repatriation Act 1920 (Cth).

(2) A member of the services who resides at the place where he is employed will not be travelling to his place of employment within the meaning of that expression in s. 107M(2) of the Repatriation Act 1920 (Cth) if he left it for private purposes, is not returning from a period of temporary residence elsewhere and his immediate purpose for returning is that the place to which he is travelling is the place at which he resides.

HEARING

Brisbane, 1984, May 15; June 19. #DATE 19:6:1984

APPEAL.

Appeal under s. 107VZZH of the Repatriation Act 1920 (Cth).

J. A. Griffin, for the appellant.

J. Jerrard, for the respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

Solicitors for the appellant: P. McCawley.

Solicitors for the respondent: T. A. Sherman, Commonwealth Crown Solicitor.

G.F.V.

ORDER

1. The Appeal be dismissed. Appeal dismissed.

JUDGE1

This is an appeal under s.107VZZH of the Repatriation Act 1920, as amended, ("the Act"), from a decision of a Repatriation Review Tribunal delivered on 30 November 1983.

The appellant, Trevor John Jamieson, was injured in a motor vehicle collision which occurred on 7 June 1975. At the time, the appellant was a Private in the Royal Australian Infantry Corps stationed at Woodside, about 40 kilometres from Adelaide in South Australia. The appellant resided in the army camp at Woodside as he was required to do.
On Friday 6 June 1975, the appellant and a number of his fellow soldiers came off duty at about 4 p.m. They were then free to leave the camp and to come and go as they pleased until required to parade on the morning of Monday 9 June 1975. However, while at the camp, each of the soldiers were subject to all of the incidents…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Jamieson, Trevor John v Repatriation Commission and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1984] FCA 169
Decision Date: 19 JUNE 1984

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was an appeal by Trevor John Jamieson against a decision of the Repatriation Review Tribunal. Jamieson, a private in the Royal Australian Infantry Corps, sought a review of the Tribunal's decision regarding his eligibility for repatriation benefits. The central issue was whether Jamieson's travel at the time of his injury constituted travel to his place of employment during his service. Specifically, the court needed to determine if his travel was related to his service or if it was for private purposes.

The legal issue before the court was whether Jamieson was travelling to his place of employment when he was injured in a motor collision. The Tribunal had ruled that since Jamieson had left his place of employment for private purposes, his travel did not qualify as travel to his place of employment under the relevant legislation. Jamieson argued that his travel was related to his employment and thus eligible for benefits. The court needed to examine the circumstances surrounding the travel and determine if it was indeed related to his service or for a private reason.

In dismissing the appeal, the court found that the Tribunal had correctly interpreted the relevant legislation. The court held that the Tribunal's decision was not in error as it was based on the established fact that Jamieson had left his place of employment for private purposes. Consequently, his travel did not qualify as travel to his place of employment. The court emphasised that the key factor was the nature of the travel at the time of the injury, not the fact that he was a serviceman. As such, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Repatriation Review Tribunal was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Appeal be dismissed. Appeal dismissed.

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.