Repatriation Commission v Lawrie, H.V. Repatriation Commission v Taylor, M.D

[1992] FCA 525

5 2 S j 9 2

JUDGMENT No. .....- , . .,.

C A T C H W O R D S

Practice and procedure - motion to vacate hearing dates - pending decision in similar circumstances - whether decisions will necessarily bear on the matters the subject of the appeal in question - unnecessary delay.

fooDer J.. Brisbane. 23 Julv. 1992

G79/92

G80192

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRX

ENERAL DIVISION

On appeal from the Veterans' Appeals Division o f the Administrative Appeals Tribunal constituted by Deputy President D.P. Breen (Presidential Member) and Brigadier T.R. Gibson

(Member) .

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

HAZEL VIOLET LAWRIE

Reeuondent

No. G80 of 1992

BETWEEN 1 REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Avvlicant

m:  MILDRED DORIS TAYLOR

Reevondent

HINUTES OF ORDER

JUDGE HAXING ORDER? Cooper J.

WHERB:	Brisbane
DATE OF ORDER:	23 July, 1992

!DIE COURT ORDERS m:

1. The motion to vacate the hearing datee ie diemieaed.

2.         The applicant pay the reapondentav costs of and incidental to the motion to be taxed.

l!Q!m: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

9 A

9UEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	No. G79 of 1992

On appeal from the Veterans' Appeals Division o f the Administrative Appeals Tribunal constituted by Deputy President D.P. Breen (Presidential Member) and Brigadier T.R. Gibson

(Member) .

BETWEEN :	REPATRIATION COMMISSION
m:	HAZEL VIOLET LAWRIE

Res~ondent

No. G80 of 1992

BETWEEN:	REPATRIATION COMMISSION
m:	MILDRED DORIS TAYLOR
Cooper J. Brisbane 23 July, 1992

EX TENPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an application on behalf of the applicant, Repatriation Commission, to obtain an order vacating the hearing dates which have been allocated by Mr. Justice Spender on 7 July, 1992 listing two appeals from the decisions of the Veterans Appeals Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for hearing at 10.15 a.m. on 4 August, 1992.

In an affidavit of Ivan James Cahill, the applicant

sets out the reasons which it contends justify my making the

orders sought.

There are two principal grounds. The first is a
decision of the High Court which is pending in a matter of

Buahell v. Re~atriation Commiseion concerning the interpretation of Section 120 of the yeterans Entitlement Act; the second reason is a pending hearing in a matter of Newton in Western Australia where the factual considerations relating to causation in circumstances similar to the factual circumstances in these appeals will be considered by an Administrative Appeals Tribunal presided over by the President of the AAT.

Having looked at the reasons the subject of the present appeals and having heard submissions from both parties, I am not persuaded that the decision of the High Court in pushela, when it is handed down, will necessarily bear on the matters the subject of this appeal. Accordingly,

I am not persuaded on that ground that the hearing dates ought	to be vacated.
So far as the second ground is concerned, it seems to me that whether or not the applicant regards the present appeals as an appropriate test case is a matter for the applicant. There is nothing in the material before me which indicates that the outcome in Newton will necessarily resolve
the issues raised on this appeal or see the end of the
appeals.
To vacate the dates leads necessarily to further delay with no certainty that either the outcome of the High Court decision or the hearing in Western Australia will finally resolve the matters between the parties. In t h o s e circumstances, the motion to vacate the hearing dates is dismissed.

I order the applicant pay the respondents' costs of

and incidental to the motion to be taxed.

I certify that this and the toro (2)

preceding pages are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of the Honourable Mr. Justice Cooper.

Associate

Mr. W. Vitali

Australian Government
Solicitor

Mr. R.G. Hancock of Sly &
Weigall Cannan & Peterson