Roncevich v Repatriation Commission

[2001] FCA 1320

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Roncevich v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 1320

JURE JACK RONCEVICH v REPATRIATION COMMISSION

D 11 OF 2001

von DOUSSA J
14 SEPTEMBER 2001
DARWIN

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	D 11 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	JURE JACK RONCEVICH APPLICANT
AND:	REPATRIATION COMMISSION RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	von DOUSSA
DATE OF ORDER:	14 SEPTEMBER 2001
WHERE MADE:	DARWIN

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal made on 16 March 2001 be set aside.

2.The matter be remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to be decided according to law.

3.The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of this appeal up to but not after 30 August 2001.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	D 11 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	JURE JACK RONCEVICH APPLICANT
AND:	REPATRIATION COMMISSION RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	von DOUSSA
DATE:	14 SEPTEMBER 2001
PLACE:	DARWIN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal on a question of law under s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) given on 16 March 2001. The decision affirmed a decision of the Veterans’ Review Board which in turn had confirmed the decision of a delegate of the Repatriation Commission to refuse a claim for acceptance of various conditions including lumbar spondylosis and internal derangement of the applicant’s left knee as being caused by eligible defence service. The applicant alleged that these conditions resulted from an incident which occurred on 27 February 1986.

2. At the commencement of the hearing of the appeal, the respondent, by its counsel Ms E Ford, conceded that the Tribunal had erred on a question of law, and said that the respondent would consent to the matter being remitted to the Tribunal to be determined according to law. 

3. The applicant by his counsel, Mr D de Marchi, said that whilst the applicant was happy to accept the concession that the Tribunal had erred on a question of law, the applicant did not consent to the appeal being disposed of in the manner proposed by the respondent. On the contrary, the applicant submitted that once an error of law was conceded, on the undisputed facts accepted by the Tribunal in its reasons for decision, the only possible outcome could be a decision that the applicant met the eligibility requirements for a pension by way of compensation under s 70 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) (the Act) for incapacity from injuries sustained by him in the incident on 27 February 1986. Accordingly, the applicant submitted that the order of the Court should set aside the decision of the Tribunal, substitute a decision that the applicant is eligible to receive a pension by way of compensation in respect of incapacity resulting from the incident on 27 February 1986, and that the matter be remitted to the Tribunal for assessment of compensation.

4. As…