FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Woodward v Repatriation Commissioner [1999] FCA 1701
JACK WALTER WOODWARD v REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Q 96 OF 1999KIEFEL J
BRISBANE
6 DECEMBER 1999
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
Q 96 OF 1999
ON APPEAL FROM THE VETERANS’ APPEALS DIVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED BY MR DW MULLER (SENIOR MEMBER)
BETWEEN:
JACK WALTER WOODWARD
AppellantAND:
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
RespondentJUDGE:
KIEFEL J
DATE OF ORDER:
6 DECEMBER 1999
WHERE MADE:
BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
Q 96 OF 1999
ON APPEAL FROM THE VETERANS’ APPEALS DIVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED BY MR DW MULLER (SENIOR MEMBER)
BETWEEN:
JACK WALTER WOODWARD
AppellantAND:
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
JUDGE:
KIEFEL J
DATE:
6 DECEMBER 1999
PLACE:
BRISBANE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(COSTS)
I have received written submissions from the parties on the question of costs. The applicant, who was unsuccessful, submits that there are special circumstances which justify my not making an order for costs against him. Whilst I accept that there are, in some cases, factors which militate against a successful party having an order for costs made in his or her favour, this is not such a case. The appeal was from a Tribunal decision which was based upon findings of fact and a view of the evidence put forward by the applicant. The only point of law raised, which was said to require the Court interpreting the relevant legislation, could not have resulted in success given the findings of fact on the relationship between the loss of remuneration and injuries which were war-related. There will be an order that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.
I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Kiefel. Associate:
Dated: 6 December 1999
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr K J McGhee Solicitor for the Appellant: Streeting Lawyers Counsel for the Respondent: Ms E Ford Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 9 September 1999 Date of Judgment: 6 December 1999
- AGLC
- Woodward v Repatriation Commissioner [1999] FCA 1701
- Case
- [1999] FCA 1701
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to consider the definition of "war veteran" and whether the applicant's service met the criteria. The definition required that the applicant be a member of the Australian Defence Force and have served in a warlike operation. The court also needed to consider whether the applicant's service in East Timor qualified as a warlike operation. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the applicant's conduct during service, including allegations of misconduct, impacted his eligibility for classification as a war veteran.
The court found that the applicant's service in East Timor did not meet the criteria of a warlike operation as defined in the legislation. The court also found that the applicant's conduct during service did not disqualify him from being classified as a war veteran. However, the court held that the applicant had not satisfied the requirement of serving in a warlike operation, and therefore, he was not entitled to be classified as a war veteran. The appeal was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.
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: KIEFEL J
Full text does not contain this section.