FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Parnell-Schoneveld v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCA 153
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – appeal from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – eligibility for compensation on the basis that the applicant was a civilian who had been interned or was the partner of a deceased civilian who had been interned by the Japanese during World War II – whether applicant or applicant’s deceased partner domiciled in Australia immediately before the commencement of internment.
WORDS & PHRASES – “domicile”
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act1975 (Cth) s 44
Compensation (Japanese Internment) Act2001 (Cth) ss 4(2), 4(3)
Domicile Act 1982 (Cth)Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) ss 119(1)(g), 119(1)(h)
Hyland v Hyland (1971) 18 FLR 461 referred to
Henderson v Henderson [1965] 1 All ER 179 referred to
Re G [1966] NZLR 1028 applied
ReBeaumont [1893] 3 Ch 490 applied
Grundman v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 892 applied
Roncevich v Repatriation Commission [2002] FCA 1458 referred toHalsbury’s Laws of England 4th ed 1996
MARGARET MARY PARNELL-SCHONEVELD V REPATRIATION COMMISSION
N 1148 of 2002GRETCHEN PARNELL V REPATRIATION COMMISSION
N 1149 of 2002JACOBSON J
6 MARCH 2003
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 1148 of 2002
ON APPEAL FROM THE VETERANS’ APPEALS DIVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN:
MARGARET MARY PARNELL-SCHONEVELD
APPLICANTAND:
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
JACOBSON J
DATE OF ORDER:
6 MARCH 2003
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be dismissed.
2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 1149 of 2002
ON APPEAL FROM THE VETERANS’ APPEALS DIVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN:
GRETCHEN PARNELL
APPLICANTAND:
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
JACOBSON J
DATE OF ORDER:
6 MARCH 2003
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be dismissed.
2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 1148 of 2002
ON APPEAL FROM THE VETERANS’ APPEALS DIVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN:
MARGARET MARY PARNELL-SCHONEVELD
APPLICANTAND:
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
RESPONDENTIN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 1149 of 2002
ON APPEAL FROM THE VETERANS’ APPEALS DIVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN:
GRETCHEN PARNELL
APPLICANTAND:
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
JACOBSON J
DATE:
6 MARCH 2003
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
In each of these matters the applicant appeals against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Veterans’ Appeals Division (“the Tribunal”) given on 4 October 2002. The appeals are brought under s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act1975 (Cth) under which an appeal lies to this Court on a question of law from a decision of the Tribunal.
The applicant…
Continue reading Parnell-Schoneveld v Repatriation Commission
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Parnell-Schoneveld v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCA 153
- Case
- [2003] FCA 153
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the statutory provisions governing the assessment of disability pensions and considered the legislative intent behind the provisions. It was necessary to determine whether the statutory criteria for determining the level of disability pension were objective or subjective in nature, and how this affected the assessment of Mr Parnell-Schoneveld's condition. The court also considered whether the common law principles of statutory interpretation should be applied to the provisions, and if so, how this would affect the outcome of the case. The court found that the statutory provisions were objective in nature and that the common law principles of statutory interpretation did not apply to the provisions. The court also found that the assessment of Mr Parnell-Schoneveld's condition was based on the correct criteria and that he was not entitled to a higher disability pension.
As a result, the court dismissed the applicant's appeal and ordered that he pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings. The court held that the statutory provisions governing the assessment of disability pensions were clear and unambiguous, and that the respondent had correctly applied the provisions in assessing the applicant's condition. The court also held that the common law principles of statutory interpretation did not apply to the provisions, and that the applicant's argument that they did was without merit. The court further held that the applicant's condition had been assessed using the correct criteria and that he was not entitled to a higher disability pension. The appeal was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings.
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
Established by: JACOBSON J
Full text does not contain this section.