United States legal-change intelligence across legislation, regulation, and case law. Separate data plane, same Zoe spine.

Platform

Legislation
Cases
Ask Zoe

Company

Pricing
API
X
LinkedIn
Instagram

Jurisdictions

Federal
Supreme Court
Alabama

District of Columbia

© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.

Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the official source for authoritative text.

Helen May Cassin & Anor v John Bredan Coats & Ors [1981] FCA 65 - FCA 1981 case summary — Zoe

Legislation Cases Absurdities Ask Zoe Graph Pricing

Home/Cases/[1981] FCA 65

CTHFCA

Helen May Cassin & Anor v John Bredan Coats & Ors [1981] FCA 65

[1981] FCA 65

Federal Court of Australia|1981-05-20|Before: Toohey J

View original source

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Federal Court of Australia

Decision date

1981-05-20

Before

Toohey J

Catchwords

Administrative law - decision of Repatriation Board refusing a pension -

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Catchwords

Administrative law - decision of Repatriation Board refusing a pension -

Judgment (12 paragraphs)

[1]

Administrative law - decision of Repatriation Board refusing a pension -

[2]

application for judicial review - whether Court should refuse to grant

[3]

application because of right of appeal - - joinder of parties.

[4]

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth.) es. 10, 12, 16, 18. Repatriation Act (Cth.) as. 24, 28.

[5]

HELEN MAY CASSIN and JAMES WELLS as Executrix and Executor respectively of the Will of Daniel John ein v. JOHN BRENDAN COATS, WILLIAM KENT O'BRIBN and LESLIE PHENNA together comprising a Repatriation Board

[6]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY No. G10 of 1981 GENERAL DIVISION

[7]

BETWEEN s HELEN MAY CASSIN AND JAMES WELLS as Executrix and Executor respectively of the Will of Daniel John Cassin

Applicants AND:

[8]

JOHN BRENDAN COATS, WILLIAM KENT O'BRIEN and LESLIE PHENNA together comprising a Repatriation Board

[9]

This application raises precisely the same issues as were argued in Kelly v. Coats, O'Brien & Phenna in which I have just delivered reasons for decision.

[10]

Counsel for the applicant and the respondents were content to rely upon the submissions made in the earlier application. I adopt my reasons in that matter and for those reasons conclude that the applicant should not be debarred from pursuing her application under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977.

[11]

I shall hear counsel as to the directions I should give in

[12]

I certify that this page 1s a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour Mr. Justice Toohey.