Bannister, M.B. v See, J.

[1982] FCA 288

CATCHWORDS

Administrative Law - Repa t r i a t ion - e n t i t l e m e n t t o War

Widow's pension - effect of amendments t o t h e R e p a t r i a t i o n

- Act, 1920 concerning onus of proof - renewed app l i ca t ion

for pension - meaning of ttreviewtl i n s.31 of the Act.

Adminis t ra t ive Decis ions	(Judicial	Review) Act, 1977
ss. 5, 7.

Repatr ia t ion Acts Amendment Act, 1977

s.12

Repatr ia t ion Acts	Amendment Ac$	1979
s.11

MAVIS BEATRICE BANNISTER v. J O H N SEE and ASHLEY COOK

I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY WAG No.16 o f 1982

GENERAL DIVISION l

MAVIS BEATRICE BANNISTER

Appellant

AND:

-

JOHN SEE and ASHLEY COOK

Respondents

O R D E R

. .

CORAM :	FOX, WOODWARD and FRANK1 JJ.
DATE :	16 December 1982

WHERE MADE: P e r t h

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal i s allowed.

2.	The respondents for thwi th no t i fy the Pres ident
o f t he Repa t r i a t ion Review Tribunal of t h e
lodgement of the app l i can t ' s app l i ca t ion he re in .
3 .	The respondents as soon as prac t icable forward
to t h e s a i d P r e s i d e n t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n a n d a l l

records and other documents under the control

2.

of t h e Department of Veterans ' Affairs

r e l a t i n g t o t h e d e c i s i o n t o	which	t h e
a p p l i c a t i o n r e l a t e s .

4 . The respondents pay the appel lant ' s taxed

c o s t s of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n for an order for

review and o f t h i s a p p e a l .

I N THE FEDERAL COURT CF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY WAG No. 16 of 1902

GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN :

MAVIS BEATRICE BANNISTER

Appellant

AND:

-

JOHN SEE and ASHLEY COOK

Respondents

FELSONS FOR JUDGMENT

FOX J.

The f a c t s i n t h i s ma t t e r and r e l evan t s t a tu to ry

p r o v i s i o n s a r e s e t o u t i n t h e judgment of Woodward J.

I agree with his conclusions and the reasons he has

given for them.

A s we a r e d i f f e r i n g from Toohey J., I should

say something myself of my v iew of the s i tua t ion .

It has not been submit ted that s.31(1) of

the Repat r ia t ion Act 1920 can only be brought into

opera t ion a t t h e i n s t a n c e of t h e Commission, nor has

L.

it has been suggested that any of the exclusion provis ions

of s.31(3) apply. I agree wi th the learned judge tha t

flreviewtl i n S. 31 (1 ) means reconsideration, but "changed

circumstances" may n o t i n my opinion be an adequate

way of descr ib ing the pre-condi t ions to rev iew. It is

n o t n e c e s s a r y i n t h i s c a s e t o a r r i v e a t a decision on

t h i s matter. Cer t a in ly the sub - sec t ion is not intended

merely to provide an avenue for f u r t h e r a p p e a l , a f t e r

t he re has been a de te rmina t ion by t h e Commission o r t h e

Tribunal. I t can be assumed that obviously hopeless o r

mere ly vexa t ious appl ica t ions	would	be excluded from
review.

It is o f s i g n i f i c a n c e t h a t t h e r e v i e w i s of

"any assessment, decision o r determination i n r e l a t i o n

to pens ionf1 . The scope of reviewzble matters is wide.

It i s p l a i n t h a t the r ev iew can l ead to r e su l t s o f

importance; sub-section (2 ) makes it c l e a r t h a t

revocat ion and v a r i a t i o n of an assessment of pension

are included. The submiss ion tha t s.31 i s n o t p a r t of

the appea l machinery of the	Act	is	ra the r bes ides the
poin t .

It seems reasonably clear, despite language

t o t h e c o n t r a r y i n some documents, t h a t t h e r e was a

review. \illat was done, as evidenced by the Commission's

Reasons fo r Dec i s ion , was a cons idera t ion of the fac ts and

mer i t s o f t he ma t t e r .

3 .

When it goes beyond i t s screening funct ion,

t he Commission i s embarking upon the review. It would

be a s t r ange r e su l t , hav ing i n mind the scope o f i t s

power when it does so, i f an appeal were not open t o

an unsuccess fu l app l i can t fo r a pension. Section

107VC(l) r e f e r s t o t h e r e f u s a l o f a claim. The

appl ica t ion under s.31 can properly be regarded as a

claim. I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e t h e r e was i n substance and

i n f a c t t h e r e f u s a l o f Mrs. Barnis te rns c la im. A

second refusal, no doubt , but still a re fusa l . The

a p p e a l r e a l l y turns on t h i s a s p e c t , namely t h a t of

a s ses s ing and cha rac t e r i s ing what t he Commission did.

I am o f t h e view t h a t s . l O 7 V C app l i e s and

t h a t Krs. Bannis te r ' s appl ica t ion should be dea l t w i t h

accordingly.

I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY WAG No. 16 of 1982

GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN :

MAVIS BEATRICE BANNISTER

Appellant

AND:

J O H N SEE and ASHLEY COOK

Respondents

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WOODWARD J.

This i s an appeal from a decision by Toohey J.

dismissing an appl icat ion, under the Adminis t ra t ive

Dec i s ions ( Jud ic i a l Review) A c t 1977, by t h e widow of a

former serviceman who i s seeking to reopen the ques t ion

of h e r e n t i t l e m e n t t o a pens ion pursuant to the

Repa t r i a t ion Act 1920.

The appl icant ! s husband died on 21 March 1975.

She lodged a c la im for acceptance of h i s d e a t h as being

r e l a t e d t o h i s war service. That claim was r e j e c t e d by

a Repatr ia t ion Board. An appea l t o the Repa t r i a t ion

Commission was dismissed. A fu r the r appea l t o a War

2.

Pensions Ent i t lement Appeal Tribunal-was a l s o u l t ima te ly

dismissed on 2 May 1978, b u t no t before the mat te r had

been remit ted t o t he Repa t r i a t ion Commission f o r it t o

recons ider i t s d e c i s i o n i n t h e l i g h t o f fresh evidence

produced by the appl icant in support of her c la im.

It w i l l be seen tha t these var ious proceedings

took place over a p e r i o d o f some three years . Between

the recons idera t ion by the Repa t r i a t ion Commission and

t h e f i n a l d i s m i s s a l o f t h e appl icantss appeal by the

Mar Pensions Entit lement Appeal Tribunal, some very

s i g n i f i c a n t amendments were made to the Repa t r i a t ion Ac t .

I n p a r t i c u l a r , a new s.47 came in to fo rce on 1 October

1977, which provided, i n sub - sec t ion (Z),

“The Commission, Board, Appesl Tribunal

or Assessment Appeal Tribunal s h a l l

g r a n t t h e claim or a p p l i c a t i o n or allow

the appea l , as t h e c a s e may be, unless

it is s a t i s f i e d , beyond reasonable

doubt, tha t t h e r e a r e i n s u f f i c i e n t

grounds for gran t ing the c la im or

a p p l i c a t i o n or al lowing the appeal” .

Fu r the r amendments t o t h e Act came i n t o

operat ion on 1 July 1979. These amended s.47(2) without

changing i t s substance and, among o ther th ings ,

e s t a b l i s h e d a new Repat r ia t ion Review Tr ibuna l t o t ake

the p l ace o f t he War Pensions Entit lement Appeal

Tribunals, and i n sub-paragraph 2(a) of s.l07VH, requi red

3.

the Tr ibuna l t o se t a s i d e any decis ion refusing a claim

o r a p p l i c a t i o n f o r p e n s i o n 9 m l e s s it i s s a t i s f i e d ,

beyond reasonable doubt , tha t there were insuf f ic ien t

grounds for gran t ing the c l a im o r appl ica t ion" .

The effect of these and o t h e r r e l a t e d amendments

t o t h e Act was considered by Toohey J., t h e Full Court

o f t h i s Cour t , and f ina l ly by the High C o u r t , i n

Repa t r i a t ion Commission v - Law (1980) 29 A.L.R. 64,

(1980) 31 A.L.R. 140, and (1981) 36 A.L.R. 411.

It w a s i n t h e l i g h t o f t h e s e amendments and

dec is ions t h a t the appl icant sought t o renew h e r claim

f o r a pension. She did s o through a l e t t e r w r i t t e n b y

t h e Legacy advocate, Mr. I . H . Davies, on 1 J u l y 1981.

Tha t l e t t e r , omi t t i ng fo rma l pa r t s ,	was	i n	the fo l lowing
terms,

"Application is made for acceptance

o f t h e claim by Mrs. Bann i s t e r fo r a War

Widows Pension. This appl icat ion i s made

under Sec t ions 31 and/or 107VL( 1) of the

R e p a t r i a t i o n Act and t h e I t s u f f i c i e n t

reasont1 of "special c i rcumstancest ' are c l a i m e d t o b e t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e

p rov i s ions o f t he Repa t r i a t ion A c t now

given by the Full Federal Court .

The ex-member died from Motor Neurone

Disease and medical reports were submitted

from two l e a d i n g a u t h o r i t i e s - Professor

B. Kakulas - world recognised authori ty on

neu ro log ica l d i seases ; and Professor R.L.

Dawkins, Professor of Immunology,

University of W.A. and Queen Elizabeth

Medical Centre.

4 .

Professor Kakulas drew a t t e n t i o n

t o t h e unknown o r i g i n of t h e d i s e a s e

and, by inference, supported acceptance

of the claim because of the doubt

regard ing or ig in ; and Professor Dawkins

( a t t h a t t i m e D r . Dawkins) po in ted out

tha t an accep ted d i s a b i l i t y c o u l d

parade as M.N.D. and vice versa .

If t h e l a t t e r o p i n i o n i s c o r r e c t ,

i n this case an A/D parades as, what

l a t e r became, t h e f a t a l c o n d i t i o n . In

any case it i s claimed that no reason-

able man can.be convinced beyond

reasonable doubt that there is no

subs t ance to t h i s claim - p a r t i c u l a r l y

as n e i t h e r o f t h e eminent medical men

are p r e p a r e d t o deny it.

It i s r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e widow's

claim be granted for thwi th .

The Repa t r i a t ion Commission r e p l i e d t o t h a t

l e t t e r on 12 November 1981 saying, among o ther th ings ,

"The Commission has dec ided tha t it

w i l l r econs ider the case under sec t ion

31	of	the Repa t r i a t ion Act.
This case has been programmed for

a t t e n t i o n , however, ca ses a r e d e a l t

with b y t h e Commission in ch rono log ica l

order. In view o f t h e c u r r e n t workload

being experienced by the Commission, a

d e c i s i o n i n t h i s c a s e may be delayed

f o r a sho r t pe r iod . I would l i k e t o

a s su re you t h a t e v e r y e f f o r t w i l l be

made t o r e s o l v e t h i s case with a

minimum of delay."

By th i s t ime the High Court had dismissed the

appea l i n Law's Case. It did so on 16 October 1981 .

5 .

On 22 December 1981 t h e Commission wrote t o

t h e a p p l i c a n t ,

"A Repa t r i a t ion Commission has

noted your reques t for recons idera t ion

of your c la im for acceptance of your

husband ' s dea th as due to h is se rv ice .

A f t e r c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n , t h e

Commission has dec ided tha t su f f i c i en t

r eason does no t ex i s t t o war ran t it

reviewing the War Pensions Entit lement

Appeal Tribunal decision of 2 May 1978

i n r e s p e c t o f the memberss death.

A copy of the Commission's reasons

f o r i t s dec i s ion i s enclosed.

I

However, your case may be re-opened

a t any time by the submission, i n w r i t i n g ,

of further evidence which would have been

r e l e v a n t t o t h e Commission's decision.

This evidence may be medical o r l a y ,

i n the form of a c e r t i f i c a t e o f ( s i c ) s ta tement which might he lp re la te your

husbands s d e a t h t o h i s s e r v i c e . .

The enclosed 'Reasons for Decisions dated 9

December 1981, were s e t o u t i n a two-page document which

canvassed the evidence to which Y r . D a v i e s ' l e t t e r had

drawn attention and concluded

!'The Commission i s s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h e

judgment by the Full Court of the Federal

Court i n t h e c a s e o f R e p a t r i a t i o n Commission

v. Nancy Law does not i n any way a f f e c t t h e

p rev ious cons ide ra t ions g iven to the r epor t s

by Professors Kakulas and Dawkins. The

de te rmin ing au tho r i t i e s who previously considered the widowss claims did not base

their decis ions on misunderstandings o r

mis in t e rp re t a t ions o f t he Repa t r i a t ion Act.

6 .

For these r easons , t he Commission,

having had f u l l r e g a r d t o t h e judgment

by the Full Court of the Federal Court

i n t he case o f Repa t r i a t ion Commission

v. Nancy Law, d o e s n o t c o n s i d e r t h a t

s u f f i c i e n t r e a s o n e x i s t s t o w a r r a n t

fur ther rev iew under Sec t ion 31 of t h e

Repa t r i a t ion Act	i n r e s p e c t	of	t h e widow's
claim.

On 11 January 1982 M r . Davies wrote to the

Repa t r i a t ion Review Tribunal , appeal ing against ' I the

dec i s ion o f the Repa t r i a t ion Commission as se t o u t i n

the 'Reasons' dated 9 December 1981 no t t o r ev iew o r

g ran t t h i s appeal". The l e t t e r p u r p o r t e d t o b e w r i t t e n

p u r s u a n t t o	s . l O 7 V C	o f t he Repa t r i a t ion	Act,	which	i n
p a r t p r o v i d e s

Where the Commission has made a

d e c i s i o n r e f u s i n g a claim by a person

f o r a pension .... t h a t p e r s o n may ....

make a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e T r i b u n a l f o r a

review of t he dec i s ion o f t he Commission."

Where an app l i ca t ion i s made unde r tha t s ec t ion ,

s.lO7VF' of the Act r equ i r e s the Sec re t a ry o f t he Department

o f Ve te rans ' Af fa i r s t o no t i fy the P res iden t o f t he

Tribunal , within 21 d a y s , t h a t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n h a s been

lodged, and then, as soon as pract icable , to forward t o

t h e P r e s i d e n t the a p p l i c a t i o n a n d a l l r e l e v a n t m a t e r i a l .

7.

The s e c r e t a r y h a s f a i l e d o r r e f u s e d t o p u t

the mat te r before the Tr ibunal , c la iming tha t the

Commission's l a t e s t d e c i s i o n was n o t 'la dec is ion re fus ing

a claim by a pe r son fo r a pensiont1, i n the terms of

S. 107VC, and s o no appea l l ay to the Tr ibuna l .

The a p p l i c a n t s e e k s t o r e v i e w t h a t f a i l u r e o r

re fusa l on the ground tha t there has been a f a i l u r e t o

make a d e c i s i o n w i t h i n t h e meaning of s.7 o f t h e J u d i c i a l

Review Act. It would seem t o have been more appropr ia te

for t he g round o f app l i ca t ion to have r e fe r r ed to a

w r o n g f u l d e c i s i o n n o t t o p u t t h e m a t t e r b e f o r e t h e

Tribunal, and t o have r e l i e d upon s.5 of t h e Act.

However, no object ion has been taken to the form of the

appl ica t ion .

_ .

The determination of th i s matter depends largely

upon t h e meaning and	effect of	s.31(1)	of the Repat r ia t ion
Act 1920.

That sub-section provides,

Whenever it a p p e a r s t o t h e Commission

that , under t h i s Act , suf f ic ien t reason

exists for reviewing any assessment,

dec is ion or d e t e r m i n a t i o n i n r e l a t i o n t o

pens ion (o ther than a serv ice pens ion) the

Commission may review the assessment,

dec i s ion or determination.

a.

Toohey J. took the view that the sub-sect ion

l lcontemplates, not an appeal from t h e

or ig ina l assessment , dec is ion o r

de te rmina t ion but a recons idera t ion of

t ha t a s ses smen t , dec i s ion o r determination

I1

because of subsequent events	....
H i s Honour went on,

" A s a resu l t of a review under s.31

t h e Commission may vary or revoke an

assessment , decis ion o r determination o r

of course it may leave that assessment ,

d e c i s i o n o r determination stand. If,

fo l lowing a review under s.31 t h e

Commission d e c i d e s t o l e a v e unchanged an

e a r l i e r d e t e r m i n a t i o n r e f u s i n g a claim

for a pension, I do no t t h ink that is

i tsel f 'a dec i s ion r e fus ing a claim by a

person €or a pension ' within s.lO7VC.

That dec is ion has a l ready been made and

was sub jec t t o appea l unde r Pa r t I11 A

o f t he Act; a l l t h a t t h e Commission has

done	i s t o l e a v e t h a t d e c i s i o n	unchanged
....

It may b e t h a t i f , following a

review under S. 31 , t h e g r a n t of a pension

i s revoked, there has been a dec is ion

r e f u s i n g a claim within s.IO~VC.~~

(His Honour went on t o s a y t h a t h e

expressed no view on t h i s m a t t e r . )

If Toohey J. was r i g h t i n so holding, then

c l e a r l y t h e applicantss a t tempted appea l to the

Repa t r i a t ion Review Tribunal was misconceived and her

a p p l i c a t i o n u n d e r t h e J u d i c i a l Review Act must f a i l .

9.

Unfortunately I f ind myself unable to agree

with Toohey J. on t h e p l a c e o f s.31 with in the genera l

scheme o f t he Act. I b e l i e v e t h a t an actual review of

a previous assessment , decis ion o r determination which

takes place because of subsequent events - whether those

events be a change i n t h e a p p l i c a n t s s c i r c u m s t a n c e s , a

change i n t h e law, the ava i l ab i l i t y o f € re sh ev idence

o r a change i n t h e s t a t e of medical knowledge - w i l l

g i v e r i s e t o a r igh t of appea l to the Tr ibunal under

P a r t I11 A o f t he A c t i n appropr i a t e cases .

I t h i n k t h a t t h i s mus t c lear ly be so i n t h e

case where a pension i s revoked, which Toohey J. r e fe r r ed

t o without expressing a concluded opinion. It i s a l s o

t h e case where t h e Commission "has made a decis ion

r e f u s i n g t o a l t e r t h e e x i s t i n g a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e r a t e

o f pension o f a member of the Forces1 ' (see s . l07VD(l)(b)) .

The r i g h t t o get back to the Tr ibuna l a f t e r an unsuccess fu l

appeal, i f it is des i red to submi t fur ther ev idence , is

also recognized by s.10W1.

The a p p l i c a t i o n by t h e Legacy advocate i n t h i s

case, of 1 J u l y 1981, was i n t e r m s a €resh appl icat ion

f o r a pension. More impor t an t , t h i s was the substance

of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n .

10.

The f a c t t h a t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n i n v o l v e d t h e

I Commission s t a r t i n g from the p o i n t o f a previous adverse

dec is ion , and reviewing the correctness of that decis ion

i n t h e l i g h t of some alleged changed circumstances which

g a v e ' s u f f i c i e n t r e a s o n t t o j u s t i f y the review, does not

a l t e r the subs tance of the matter. A r e - s t a t e d r e f u s a l

t o r e c o g n i z e a death as se rv ice - r e l a t ed is, i n my view,

Ita dec i s ion r e fus ing a claim by a person for a pensiont1

w i t h i n t h e meaning of s . l O 7 V C .

T h i s approach which I t a k e t o s.31 (which I

concede has to be based on gene ra l impress ions a s t o

t h e p o l i c y o f t h e Act r a the r t han on any ca re fu l ana lys i s

of the words used) would seem t o b e s u f f i c i e n t t o j u s t i f y

the a l lowing of th i s appea l .

However counse l fo r the respondents re l ied on

an argument before us which was re fer red to by counse l

f o r the app l i can t , bu t ce r t a in ly no t deve loped by

counsel €or the respondents , before Toohey J.

This was t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t t h e r e was no a c t u a l

rev iew pursuant to s.31 of the Act i n t h i s case. A l l

tha t occur red , it i s s a i d , was a cons idera t ion of the

p o s s i b i l i t y o f a review and a d e c i s i o n n o t t o conduct

one. This, it was argued, f e l l w e l l s h o r t o f any

d e c i s i o n t o r e f u s e a pension claim.

11.

I n my view there i s fo rce i n t h i s submission.

If t h e Commission d e c l i n e s t o embark on any review,

because it i s obvious on the face of the reques t o r on

s i m p l e i n q u i r y t h a t t h e r e a r e no adequate changed

c i r c u m s t a n c e s t o c o n s t i t u t e ' s u f f i c i e n t r e a s o n ' f o r a

review, then I b e l i e v e no appeal would l i e t o the

Tribunal. The l e g a l i t y and good fa i th of any such

I

dec is ion could , o f course , be tes ted under the

Adminis t ra t ive Decis ions ( Judic ia l Review) A c t 1977.

There w i l l sometimes be a f i n e l i n e between consideration

whether o r n o t t o review and an actual review. The

Commission	s h o u l d t a k e p a i n s t o d i s t i n g u i s h	the	two
processes.

B u t I do n o t b e l i e v e t h a t t h e r e was a r e f u s a l

t o r e v i e w i n the present case . I s a y t h i s i n s p i t e o f

the absence of any formal hearing, as contemplated i n

some cases by s.32 of the Act , and the use o f such

expressions as Ifthe Commission has d e c i d e d t h a t s u f f i c i e n t

r eason does no t ex i s t t o war ran t	it	reviewing ( the
e a r l i e r d e c i s i o n ) 1 1 i n t h e l e t t e r o f	22 December 1981,

and !Ithe Commission .... does not cons ider tha t

s u f f i c i e n t r e a s o n exists to warran t fur ther rev iew under

s.31 ..l1 i n the accompanying 9Reasons €or Decision' .

This l a s t sen tence seems t o s u g g e s t t h a t , i n t h i s c a s e ,

t h e r e has been a p a r t i a l o r incomplete review, which

may wel l b e t h e t r u e p o s i t i o n .

12.

I t h i n k t h a t , w i t h i n t h e meaning of s.31,

t h e Commission d id ' rev iew' the ear l ie r de te rmina t ion -

-

a s it should have done - i n t h e l i g h t o f t h e s i g n i f i c a n t

changes i n t h e l a w which may have only been fully

understood as a r e s u l t o f t h e d e c i s i o n s i n R e p a t r i a t i o n

Commission v - Law (above). Having reviewed t h a t

de te rmina t ion , the Commission dec ided to affirm it.

For the reasons I have already given, I b e l i e v e t h a t

an appeal	l i e s from	t h a t d e c i s i o n t o t h e R e p a t r i a t i o n
Tribunal.

I would therefore uphold the appeal , make t h e

orders sought by the appel lan t and d i r e c t t h a t t h e

respondents pay the appel lant ' s taxed costs of the

appea l and the appl ica t ion .

I certlfy that fhi: and the '/

, preceomg Fa,-: are a true copy of the

: Reasons ior Juignen! herein oi the Ronourable

Mr. Juslice A E \'.'ocox::ard

I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	WAG No. 16 o f 1982
GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN :

MAVIS BEATRICE BANNISTER

Appellant

AND:

JOHN SEE and ASHLEY COOK

Respondents

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

FRANK1 J.

I agree wi th the reasons for judgment o€

Woodward J. and wi-ch t h e o r d e r s which he proposes.