Murray v Repatriation Commission (No 2)

Case [2016] FCA 1216


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Murray v Repatriation Commission (No 2) [2016] FCA 1216

Appeal from: Murray v Repatriation Commission [2015] AATA 364
File number: VID 332 of 2015
Judge: BROMBERG  J
Date of judgment: 14 October 2016
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – scope of remittal – whether redetermination by the Tribunal should be made by reference to evidence already adduced, without further evidence – where the member who made the original decision is no longer a member of the Tribunal – the scope of remittal in relation to evidence should be unconfined by the Court – any limitation on further evidence may be determined by the Tribunal
Legislation:

Administrative Appeals Tribunals Act 1975 (Cth) ss 25(4A), 44, 44(5)

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) ss 23(1), 23(3), 24(1), 24(2)

Cases cited:

Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Central Aviation Pty Ltd (2009) 179 FCR 554

Comcare v Broadhurst (2011) 192 FCR 497

Murray v Repatriation Commission [2016] FCA 1150

Negri v Secretary, Department of Social Services (No 2) [2016] FCA 1125

Date of hearing: Determined on the papers
Registry: Victoria
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 8
Counsel for the Applicant: Ms FC Spencer
Solicitor for the Applicant: Williams Winter Solicitors
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms C Dowsett
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

VID 332 of 2015
BETWEEN:

TERRENCE MURRAY

Applicant

AND:

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

JUDGE:

BROMBERG  J

DATE OF ORDER:

14 OCTOBER 2016

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Order 3 of the Orders made on 22 September 2016 be set aside and in lieu thereof the case be remitted to the Tribunal limited to reconsideration of the issues raised by:

(i)Section 23(1)(c) and (3); and

(ii)Section 24(1)(c) and (2),

of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth).

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BROMBERG J:

  1. On 22 September 2016 I published my reasons for judgment on the substantive issues raised by this appeal (Murray v Repatriation Commission [2016] FCA 1150). Those reasons should be read with these reasons. Abbreviated terms utilised in those reasons are here continued.

  2. On 22 September 2016 I made an order that the decision of the Tribunal made on 27 May 2015 be set aside.  I also made a provisional order that the remittal to the Tribunal be made without limitation.  I did that reserving to the parties the opportunity to seek a further order imposing a limitation upon the remittal.  That opportunity was taken and these reasons deal with that issue.  On the question of the scope of the remittal, I propose to set aside the order made on 22 September 2016 and in lieu thereof make an order that the remittal be limited to the reconsideration of the issues raised by:

    (i)s 23(1)(c) and (3); and

    (ii)s 24(1)(c) and (2),

    of the VE Act.

  3. Both parties essentially agreed that the remittal should be limited to a reconsideration…

Continue reading Murray v Repatriation Commission (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Murray v Repatriation Commission (No 2) [2016] FCA 1216
Case
[2016] FCA 1216
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Murray v Repatriation Commission (No 2), the plaintiff sought judicial review of a decision made by the Repatriation Commission, a body established under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth). The plaintiff, a veteran, contested the Commission's decision to deny him certain benefits and entitlements. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the plaintiff argued that the Commission's decision was flawed and should be reconsidered.

The central legal issue before the Court was the scope of remittal when a case is sent back to the original decision-maker for reconsideration. Specifically, the Court had to determine whether the Tribunal, upon remittal, should be able to consider new evidence, or whether it should be confined to the evidence already presented in the original decision-making process. This issue was particularly pertinent because the member of the Tribunal who made the original decision was no longer a member of the Tribunal.

The Court held that the remittal should not be constrained by the Court regarding the scope of evidence. Instead, any limitations on the consideration of further evidence should be determined by the Tribunal. The Court emphasized that the remittal should allow for a comprehensive reconsideration of the case, taking into account any new evidence that may be relevant to the issues at hand. Consequently, the Court set aside the previous orders and remitted the case to the Tribunal for reconsideration, specifically addressing the issues arising under sections 23(1)(c) and (3), and sections 24(1)(c) and (2) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth).

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Order 3 of the Orders made on 22 September 2016 be set aside and in lieu thereof the case be remitted to the Tribunal limited to reconsideration of the issues raised by:

(i) Section 23(1)(c) and (3); and

(ii) Section 24(1)(c) and (2),

of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth).

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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.