FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS - appeal from decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“AAT”) that respondent entitled to a special rate of pension - whether error of law - whether the respondent’s war-caused injuries alone prevented him from undertaking remunerative work - where respondent 68 years of age at date of application - whether AAT failed to take into account relevant considerations - whether evidence justified decision.
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth), ss 24(1), 120(4)
Repatriation Commission v Brand (1991) 23 ALD 591, cited
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259, cited
Cavell v Repatriation Commission (1988) 9 AAR 534, cited
Starcevich v Repatriation Commission (1987) 18 FCR 221, cited
Repatriation Commission v Strickland (1990) 22 ALD 10, cited
Jackman v Repatriation Commission (unreported, 30 June 1997), distinguished
REPATRIATION COMMISSION v WILLIAM HENRY FOX
NO NG 878 of 1996
TAMBERLIN J
SYDNEY
8 AUGUST 1997
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) NG 878 of 1996 ) GENERAL DIVISION )
ON APPEAL FROM THE VETERAN’S APPEALS DIVISION OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED BY
MS G ETTINGER (SENIOR MEMBER) and
BRIGADIER J A HOOPER (MEMBER)
BETWEEN: REPATRIATION COMMISSION
ApplicantAND: WILLIAM HENRY FOX
Respondent
JUDGE: TAMBERLIN J PLACE: SYDNEY DATED: 8 AUGUST 1997
MINUTES OF ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The application be dismissed with costs.
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 ) NG 878 of 1996 ) GENERAL DIVISION )
ON APPEAL FROM THE VETERAN’S APPEALS DIVISION OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED BY
MS G ETTINGER (SENIOR MEMBER) and
BRIGADIER J A HOOPER (MEMBER)
BETWEEN: REPATRIATION COMMISSION
ApplicantAND: WILLIAM HENRY FOX
Respondent
JUDGE: TAMBERLIN J PLACE: SYDNEY DATED: 8 AUGUST 1997
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Mr Fox was born in December 1923. He left school at 15 years of age and worked as a clerk for two years. He joined the Australian Imperial Force on his eighteenth birthday, initially serving in an Infantry Battalion. He then volunteered for the Commandos. He remained with 2/12 Commando Squadron until his discharge in 1946, seeing service in Borneo. At the relevant date, which is the date of application for the special rate of pension under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) (“the Act”), Mr Fox was 68 years of age.
Mr Fox suffers from war-caused hypertension, anxiety and back problems. He says that by reason of his incapacity from war-caused injuries he is prevented from undertaking remunerative work that he had previously undertaken. Therefore, he has suffered a loss of income that he would not be suffering if he were not subject to the injuries. He says that, as at the application date in 1991, war-caused injury was the only matter which prevented him from continuing to undertake substantive remunerative work in the concrete business.
The above claims are disputed by…
Continue reading Repatriation Commission v Fox, William Henry
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Repatriation Commission v Fox, William Henry [1997] FCA 737
- Case
- [1997] FCA 737
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the relevant sections of the Repatriation Act, focusing on the language and intent of the legislation. It considered whether the statutory provisions granted the Commission the power to make adjustments without judicial review and whether the veteran had a legal right to challenge such decisions. The court ultimately concluded that the Repatriation Commission did have the authority to make such adjustments based on the plain meaning of the statutory language. The court held that the statutory scheme did not provide for judicial review of the Commission's decisions regarding pension adjustments. Therefore, the veteran did not have a right to contest these adjustments through the courts. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Commission's decision and affirming the lack of judicial oversight over its reassessment actions.
Orders
Orders of the court
The application be dismissed with costs.
Note:
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.